U.S. v. Spaustat, 57 M.J. 256

Trial Stages: Merits: Pretrial Agreements

1. interpretation of a pretrial agreement is a question of law, reviewed de novo

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Credits

1. the proper applications of credit for illegal pretrial punishment and lawful pretrial confinement are questions of law, reviewed de novo
2. the military judge’s decision to apply credit for unlawful pretrial punishment against the lesser sentence provided for in the pretrial agreement was consistent with United States v. Rock, 52 MJ 154, 157 (1999)
3. credit for 102 days of pretrial confinement must be applied against the lesser of the adjudged sentence or the sentence limitation in the pretrial agreement
4. the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial make no provision for good time credit, and the responsibility for determining how much good time credit, if any, will be awarded is an administrative responsibility, vested in the commander of the confinement facility
5. judicial review of disputes about good time credit occurs only upon application for an extraordinary writ, not on direct review of the sentence
6. in all future cases after August 30, 2002, the date of this decision, the convening authority is required to direct application of all confinement credits for violations of Article 13 or RCM 305 and all Allen credit against the approved sentence, i.e., the lesser of the adjudged sentence or the sentence that may be approved under the pretrial agreement, as further reduced by any clemency granted by the convening authority, unless the pretrial agreement provides otherwise

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Lawfulness of Sentence

1. the adjudged sentence imposed confinement for ten months where the record clearly reflects that the military judge adjudged a sentence including confinement for ten months even though he orally stated a sentence to confinement that reflected a deduction for unlawful pretrial punishment credit; there is no ambiguity regarding the adjudged sentence
2. the military judge did not illegally reconsider his sentence where he merely corrected his calculation of confinement credits and clarified their impact on the confinement remaining to be served

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Action

1. in all future cases after August 30, 2002, the date of this decision, the convening authority is required to direct application of all confinement credits for violations of Article 13 or RCM 305 and all Allen credit against the approved sentence, i.e., the lesser of the adjudged sentence or the sentence that may be approved under the pretrial agreement, as further reduced by any clemency granted by the convening authority, unless the pretrial agreement provides otherwise

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Sentence reassessment

1. even if appellant should have been released from confinement on December 10 instead of December 27, the additional days of confinement do not warrant granting his request to set aside his bad-conduct discharge

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

1. the proper applications of credit for illegal pretrial punishment and lawful pretrial confinement are questions of law, reviewed de novo
2. interpretation of a pretrial agreement is a question of law, reviewed de novo

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Administrative Issues

1. judicial review of disputes about good time credit occurs only upon application for an extraordinary writ, not on direct review of the sentence