U.S. v. Guinn, 81 M.J. 195

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. United States v. Grostefon (12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982)) requires a CCA to acknowledge that it has considered issues enumerated by the accused and its disposition of them, even if those issues seem facially frivolous

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

1. under Article 66, UCMJ, the CCA has the responsibility to ensure that the sentence imposed on an appellant is correct in law; for example, it has the responsibility to ensure that the adjudged and approved sentence in a particular case does not exceed the maximum penalty authorized under the applicable punitive article; the CCA also has the responsibility under Article 66 is to determine whether the sentence imposed on an appellant should be approved; for example, it must determine the appropriateness of an adjudged and approved sentence in light of the underlying facts adduced at trial, to include all extenuating and mitigating circumstances
2. when determining whether an imposed sentence is correct in law and should be approved, the CCAs are empowered to grant sentence relief based on post-trial confinement conditions
3. a court of criminal appeals not only has the authority but also the duty to ensure that the severity of an adjudged and approved sentence has not been unlawfully increased by prison officials
4. a prison policy will increase the severity of a sentence if the policy constitutes punishment within the meaning of the criminal law; however, as a general matter, the collateral administrative consequences of a sentence do not constitute punishment for purposes of the criminal law
5. if a CCA exercises its Article 66(c) authority to grant relief for post-trial confinement conditions that do not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment, then for it to fully perform its duties under Article 66(c) a CCA must at least consider such claims to determine whether an appellant is indeed entitled to sentence appropriateness relief
6. if an appellant claims that post-trial confinement conditions unlawfully increased the severity of the sentence, a CCA must consider whether the sentence is correct in law
7. Eighth Amendment/Article 55 claims are not a prerequisite for relief, and therefore are not a prerequisite for mandated consideration of an appellant’s Article 66(c) claim
8. a complete Article 66, UCMJ, review is a substantial right of an accused, and without this complete review, an appellant suffers material prejudice to a substantial right
9. in this case, the CCA failed to conduct a valid Article 66(c), UCMJ, sentence appropriateness review when it failed to consider appellant’s First Amendment (freedom of association) and Fifth Amendment (privilege against self-incrimination) claims that a prison policy prohibiting him as a child sex offender from having contact with his biological children unlawfully increased his sentence, even while entertaining his Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) claims; the CCA was required to consider all of appellant’s constitutional claims in its sentence appropriateness review; by not resolving appellant’s constitutional claims, the CCA could not conclude his sentence was correct in law, let alone fulfill its separate duty to meaningfully determine whether that sentence should be approved in the event this was error; in other words, the CCA improperly declined to ensure that the severity of the adjudged and approved sentence was not unlawfully increased by prison officials and improperly declined to determine whether the confinement conditions caused Appellant’s length of imprisonment to no longer be appropriate
10. because a prison policy may increase the severity of a sentence and because a CCA has a statutory duty under Article 66(c), UCMJ, to review the legality of an appellant’s sentence, a CCA cannot ignore an appellant’s claims that a prison policy rendered an approved sentence incorrect in law even if that claim does not invoke the protections afforded under the Eighth Amendment
11. CCAs do not have unlimited authority to grant sentence appropriateness relief for any conditions of post-trial confinement of which they disapprove; however, these courts do have the authority to grant sentence appropriateness relief when the prison policy was based on a legal deficiency in the post-trial process
12. the CCAs have significant discretion in how they resolve sentence appropriateness claims, but they have a duty to do so one way or another; a CCA must determine whether it finds the sentence to be appropriate, but then it is within its sound discretion to determine how that sentence appropriateness review should be resolved
13. because the CCAs are required to review whether a sentence is appropriate, they must address an appellant’s claim that a specific prison policy contained a legal deficiency that rendered the sentence inappropriate
14. although courts should show deference to prison administrators because the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and because courts are particularly ill equipped to deal with these problems, CCAs must at least consider prison policy claims in order to determine whether a sentence is correct in law or is appropriate and whether any relief is warranted; it remains within the broad discretion of the CCA to determine whether relief is actually warranted in a specific case
15. a CCA is the only court that can address an appellant’s First and Fifth Amendment claims in the context of its Article 66(c), UCMJ, sentence appropriateness review
16. CCAs are not a clearinghouse for post-trial confinement complaints or grievances, and only in very rare circumstances will sentence relief be granted when there is no violation of the Eighth Amendment or Article 55, UCMJ
17. a CCA’s authority to grant relief is not without limits; Article 66(c), UCMJ, empowers the CCAs to do justice in its sentence appropriateness review, with reference to some legal standard, but does not grant the CCAs the ability to grant mercy
18. (an appellant who asks a CCA to review prison conditions must establish the following: (1) a record demonstrating exhaustion of administrative remedies (i.e., exhaustion of the prisoner-grievance system and a petition for relief under Article 138, UCMJ, except in unusual or egregious circumstances that would justify the failure to exhaust; (2) a clear record demonstrating the jurisdictional basis for the CCA’s action; and (3) a clear record demonstrating the legal deficiency in administration of the prison)
19. in its sentence appropriateness review, a CCA must acknowledge that it has considered issues enumerated by the accused and its disposition of them, even if those issues seem facially frivolous; however, as long as a CCA indicates that it has considered an issue raised by an appellant, a single sentence disposition is sufficient
20. a CCA must consider all of an appellant’s constitutional claims to determine whether his sentence is correct in law or is appropriate

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

1. the CAAF generally reviews a CCA’s actions under Article 66(c), UCMJ, for an abuse of discretion, recognizing that a CCA has broad discretion in conducting its Article 66(c) review, and this includes the review of a CCA’s sentence appropriateness decision; however, the CAAF conducts a de novo review with respect to the scope and meaning of the CCA’s Article 66(c) authority
2. under Article 67(c), UCMJ, the CAAF has the responsibility (1) to ensure that the severity of the adjudged and approved sentence has not been unlawfully increased by prison officials, and (2) to ensure that the sentence is executed in a manner consistent with Article 55, UCMJ, and the Eighth Amendment

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Generally

1. the question of what relief is due to remedy a violation, if any, requires a contextual judgment, rather than the pro forma application of formulaic rules

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

1. the CAAF generally reviews a CCA’s actions under Article 66(c), UCMJ, for an abuse of discretion, recognizing that a CCA has broad discretion in conducting its Article 66(c) review, and this includes the review of a CCA’s sentence appropriateness decision; however, the CAAF conducts a de novo review with respect to the scope and meaning of the CCA’s Article 66(c) authority