U.S. v. Wall, 79 M.J. 456

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Generally

1. every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself of its own jurisdiction

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Subject Matter

1. if the appeal is not ripe, it deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction and must be dismissed

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. the CAAF has a duty to review the record in all cases reviewed by a CCA in which the accused’s petition establishes good cause; the CAAF may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the CCA
2. where the CCA set aside a sentence as incorrect in law to effectuate the possibility of a rehearing on findings and sentence, the CAAF had jurisdiction over the case and could determine the scope of the CCA’s authority with respect to the remand

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. ripeness is the state of a dispute that has reached, but has not passed, the point when the facts have developed sufficiently to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made; the doctrine’s basic rationale is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties; the problem is best seen in a twofold aspect, requiring a court to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration
2. the ripeness doctrine originates in the Constitution’s Article III case or controversy language; nevertheless, Article I courts, such as the CAAF, generally adhere to this doctrine and ordinarily decline to consider an issue that is premature; if the appeal is not ripe, it deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction and must be dismissed

Military Justice Personnel: Convening Authority: Action

1. subject to the limitations of the UCMJ and the RCMs, the decision to reassess the sentence, and what sentence to approve, is solely that of the convening authority

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Action

1. subject to the limitations of the UCMJ and the RCMs, the decision to reassess the sentence, and what sentence to approve, is solely that of the convening authority

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. in a case referred to it, the CCA may act only with respect to the sentence as approved by the convening authority; in this case, by setting aside appellant’s approved sentence and remanding, the CCA extinguished the approved sentence and, thereby, its authority to further act on the sentence until the case returned from the convening authority
2. in this case, where the CCA affirmed a rape conviction, set aside a sexual assault conviction and the sentence, and remanded the case to the convening authority to either (1) order a rehearing on the sexual assault offense and the sentence, (2) dismiss the sexual assault offense and order a rehearing on the sentence, or (3) dismiss the sexual assault offense and reassess the sentence, affirming no more than a DD, confinement for 10 years, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1, the CCA was not authorized to provide what amounted to an advisory opinion by declaring what sentence to confinement it would accept as appropriate; such an advisory opinion would improperly influence what is supposed to be an independent assessment by the convening authority

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

1. the CAAF has a duty to review the record in all cases reviewed by a CCA in which the accused’s petition establishes good cause; the CAAF may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the CCA
2. where the CCA set aside a sentence as incorrect in law to effectuate the possibility of a rehearing on findings and sentence, the CAAF had jurisdiction over the case and could determine the scope of the CCA’s authority with respect to the remand
3. the ripeness doctrine originates in the Constitution’s Article III case or controversy language; nevertheless, Article I courts, such as the CAAF, generally adhere to this doctrine and ordinarily decline to consider an issue that is premature; if the appeal is not ripe, it deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction and must be dismissed
4. in this case, where the CCA affirmed a rape conviction, set aside a sexual assault conviction and the sentence, and remanded the case to the convening authority to either (1) order a rehearing on the sexual assault offense and the sentence, (2) dismiss the sexual assault offense and order a rehearing on the sentence, or (3) dismiss the sexual assault offense and reassess the sentence, affirming no more than a DD, confinement for 10 years, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1, the issue of whether the CCA was authorized to provide what amounted to an advisory opinion by declaring what sentence to confinement it would accept as appropriate was ripe for review by the CAAF because (1) the issue was a purely legal one, which could be resolved without further proceedings, (2) the adverse effect of the CCA’s ruling was neither remote nor abstract where the CCA sent a clear message to the convening authority about what sentence to confinement it would find appropriate -- a message that could unduly influence the independent judgment of the convening authority, and (3) resolution of the issue promoted judicial economy

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

1. whether an issue is ripe for review, and (2) whether a CCA is authorized to set aside a sentence and then reassess it before remanding the case to the convening authority are clearly questions of law that an appellate court reviews de novo

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Generally

1. ripeness is the state of a dispute that has reached, but has not passed, the point when the facts have developed sufficiently to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made; the doctrine’s basic rationale is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties; the problem is best seen in a twofold aspect, requiring a court to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration
2. the ripeness doctrine originates in the Constitution’s Article III case or controversy language; nevertheless, Article I courts, such as the CAAF, generally adhere to this doctrine and ordinarily decline to consider an issue that is premature; if the appeal is not ripe, it deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction and must be dismissed
3. a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Advisory Opinion

1. in this case, where the CCA affirmed a rape conviction, set aside a sexual assault conviction and the sentence, and remanded the case to the convening authority to either (1) order a rehearing on the sexual assault offense and the sentence, (2) dismiss the sexual assault offense and order a rehearing on the sentence, or (3) dismiss the sexual assault offense and reassess the sentence, affirming no more than a DD, confinement for 10 years, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1, the issue of whether the CCA was authorized to provide what amounted to an advisory opinion by declaring what sentence to confinement it would accept as appropriate was ripe for review by the CAAF because (1) the issue was a purely legal one, which could be resolved without further proceedings, (2) the adverse effect of the CCA’s ruling was neither remote nor abstract where the CCA sent a clear message to the convening authority about what sentence to confinement it would find appropriate -- a message that could unduly influence the independent judgment of the convening authority, and (3) resolution of the issue promoted judicial economy
2. an advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court on a matter that does not involve a justiciable case or controversy between adverse parties; while courts established under Article III of the Constitution may not issue advisory opinions, courts established under Article I, such as the CAAF and the CCAs, generally adhere to the prohibition on advisory opinions as a prudential matter
3. in this case, where the CCA affirmed a rape conviction, set aside a sexual assault conviction and the sentence, and remanded the case to the convening authority to either (1) order a rehearing on the sexual assault offense and the sentence, (2) dismiss the sexual assault offense and order a rehearing on the sentence, or (3) dismiss the sexual assault offense and reassess the sentence, affirming no more than a DD, confinement for 10 years, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1, the CCA was not authorized to provide what amounted to an advisory opinion by declaring what sentence to confinement it would accept as appropriate; such an advisory opinion would improperly influence what is supposed to be an independent assessment by the convening authority