U.S. v. Durant, 55 M.J. 258

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Lawfulness of Sentence

1. in reviewing claims of disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will examine three questions of law: (1) whether the cases are closely related; (2) whether the cases resulted in highly disparate sentences; and (3) whether there is a rational basis for the difference between the cases
2. sentence comparison does not require sentence equation
3. the question of whether sentences are highly disparate is not limited to a narrow comparison of the relevant numerical values of the sentences as issue, but also may include considerations of the disparity in relation to the potential maximum punishment
4. just as disparity in sentencing among codefendants is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for attacking an otherwise proper sentence under federal sentencing guidelines, the military system must be prepared to accept some disparity in the sentencing of codefendants, provided each military accused is sentenced as an individual
5. where the lower court fails to articulate its rationale for affirming a sentence in the face of closely related cases with highly disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will affirm only where the respective records of trial clearly manifest differences in these two soldier’ cases that explain the respective sentences
6. differences in mitigation evidence presented at appellant’s trial and at that of his co-actor demonstrated that there was a rational basis for the differences in sentences between the two cases

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Sentence appropriateness

1. Congress has vested responsibility for determining sentence appropriateness in the Courts of Criminal Appeals, and this task includes considerations of uniformity and evenhandedness of sentencing decisions
2. sentence comparison does not require sentence equation
3. where the lower court fails to articulate its rationale for affirming a sentence in the face of closely related cases with highly disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will affirm only where the respective records of trial clearly manifest differences in these two soldier’ cases that explain the respective sentences

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

1. the role of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in reviewing whether the Court of Criminal Appeals properly carried out its highly discretionary function of sentence appropriateness is to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion or caused a miscarriage of justice
2. in reviewing claims of disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will examine three questions of law: (1) whether the cases are closely related; (2) whether the cases resulted in highly disparate sentences; and (3) whether there is a rational basis for the difference between the cases
3. where the lower court fails to articulate its rationale for affirming a sentence in the face of closely related cases with highly disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will affirm only where the respective records of trial clearly manifest differences in these two soldier’ cases that explain the respective sentences

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. the role of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in reviewing whether the Court of Criminal Appeals properly carried out its highly discretionary function of sentence appropriateness is to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion or caused a miscarriage of justice
2. in reviewing claims of disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will examine three questions of law: (1) whether the cases are closely related; (2) whether the cases resulted in highly disparate sentences; and (3) whether there is a rational basis for the difference between the cases