U.S. v. Riley, 55 M.J. 185

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals setting aside a greater offense and affirming only a lesser-included offense effectively acquits that appellant of the greater offense; on further review, the appellant is entitled to plead double jeopardy against any attempt of the Court of Criminal Appeals to reinstate and affirm the conviction of the greater offense
2. Article 66(c) gives the Courts of Criminal Appeals factfinding power, and Congress intended to give an accused a de novo proceeding on the merits and to empower the Courts of Criminal Appeals to acquit an accused
3. on a remand from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, a Court of Criminal Appeals can only take action that conforms to the limitations and conditions prescribed by the remand; a mandate to clarify whether the evidence was insufficient to support a lesser-included offense cannot reasonably be construed to permit reinstatement of the greater offense
4. under Rule 19(a) of the uniform rules of procedure for the Courts of Criminal Appeals, once an appellant files a petition for grant of review with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Court of Criminal Appeals no longer has authority to reconsider its findings of fact

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. assuming jurisdiction at the Court of Criminal Appeals, an appellant cannot come to harm by appealing to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and securing a reversal of his conviction; an accused who obtains review at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not forego the right to beneficial action taken on his behalf by the Court of Criminal Appeals

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Sentence reassessment

1. if a Court of Criminal Appeals determines that a finding of guilty should not be affirmed, for either legal or factual reasons, that determination means that the appellant has been wrongly convicted and is entitled to sentence reassessment or rehearing under the principles announced in United States v. Sales, 22 MJ 305 (CMA 1986)

Trial Stages: Appeals: Scope of Review

1. on a remand from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, a Court of Criminal Appeals can only take action that conforms to the limitations and conditions prescribed by the remand; a mandate to clarify whether the evidence was insufficient to support a lesser-included offense cannot reasonably be construed to permit reinstatement of the greater offense
2. a remand mandate to clarify a finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the manner of death does not encompass overturning that finding and substituting specific findings as to the manner of death