U.S. v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382

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

1. in this case, the lower court concluded its sentence appropriateness analysis by stating that appellant “received the individual consideration required based on the seriousness of his offenses and his own character, which is all the law requires;” based on that language, it is impossible for us to determine whether the lower court conducted an independent assessment of the appropriateness of appellant’s sentence or merely deferred to the “individual consideration” appellant had previously received from the military judge and the convening authority; nor can we determine whether the lower court independently assessed the sentence’s appropriateness for this particular offender or merely determined that the sentence was not so disproportionate to the crime as to cry out for equalization
2. a Court of Criminal Appeals must determine whether it finds the sentence to be appropriate; it may not affirm a sentence that the court finds inappropriate, but not so disproportionate as to cry out for reduction; as the Army Court has recognized, Article 66(c)’s sentence appropriateness provision is a sweeping Congressional mandate to ensure a fair and just punishment for every accused; Article 66(c) requires that the members of the Courts of Criminal Appeals independently determine, in every case within their limited Article 66, UCMJ, jurisdiction, the sentence appropriateness of each case they affirm