U.S. v. Hutchison, 57 M.J. 231

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Post-trial Submissions

1. the accused may submit for the convening authority’s consideration anything that may reasonably tend to affect the convening authority's decision whether to approve the sentence, including matters in mitigation which were not available for consideration at the court-martial or matters that could have been raised by the accused at trial but which the accused chose not to raise

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Action

1. the initial responsibility for approval of the sentence is vested in the convening authority

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

1. during review of the sentence approved by the convening authority, the Court of Criminal Appeals must review the entire record and determine whether the sentence approved by the convening authority should be approved or whether the court should approve only a part or amount of the sentence
2. the power to review a case for sentence appropriateness includes but is not limited to consideration of: uniformity and evenhandedness of sentencing decisions; a sentence imposed by a civilian court in a closely related case; information that the accused brought to the attention of the convening authority, the allied papers; the record of trial proceedings; the wisdom, experience, and expertise of the appellate judges of the court including potential impact of administrative and nonjudicial means of disposition under service regulations, customs, and policies
3. a remand for a de novo review of appellant’s military sentence under Article 66(c) was necessary to ensure that the Court of Criminal Appeals properly limited its review to considering whether the military sentence is inappropriate, and to eliminate the possibility that the Court of Criminal Appeals acted because it viewed state court proceedings as inappropriate and sought to lessen the punishment from those proceedings

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

1. in reviewing the exercise of Article 66(c) sentencing powers, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces determines, as a matter of law, whether a Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion or caused a miscarriage of justice in carrying out its highly discretionary sentence appropriateness role

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

1. in reviewing the exercise of Article 66(c) sentencing powers, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces determines, as a matter of law, whether a Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion or caused a miscarriage of justice in carrying out its highly discretionary sentence appropriateness role