U.S. v. Behunin, 83 M.J. 158

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

1. Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ, provides the CCAs broad discretion to determine whether a sentence should be approved, a power that has no direct parallel in the federal civilian sector; the CCAs’ power to review a case for sentence appropriateness includes but is not limited to considerations of uniformity and evenhandedness of sentencing decisions
2. the CCAs typically have discretion to consider and compare other specific courts-martial sentences when they are reviewing a case for sentence appropriateness and relative uniformity; thus, generally speaking neither Article 66(d)(1) nor CAAF’s precedents requires the CCAs to engage in sentence comparison with specific cases; however, this general rule is subject to one exception; the CCAs are required to engage in sentence comparison in those rare instances in which sentence appropriateness can be fairly determined only by reference to disparate sentences adjudged in closely related cases
3. in this case, the CCA did not abuse its discretion when it determined that appellant’s case was not closely related to another accused’s case where the two were not coactors involved in a common crime because they were coactors merely ina subset of the overall convicted offenses
4. the mere fact that two servicemembers were charged under the same UCMJ articles does not mean that they were coactors involved in a common crime where the offenses were committed as independent actors rather than as coactors
5. an appellant and the putative coactor need not be convicted of identical offenses in order for them to have closely related cases; it is the nexus between the convicted offenses that serves as the key determinant
6. in this case, the CCA did not abuse its discretion when it reached its legal conclusion that appellant’s case and another accused’s case were not part of a common or parallel scheme; despite the fact that both appellant and the other accused were charged with identical UCMJ offenses, there was no direct nexus between the actual conduct of appellant and the other accused; simply stated, appellant and the other accused were independent actors in regard to those crimes
7. the mere similarity of offenses is not sufficient for sentence disparity purposes
8. in this case, where appellant and another accused were independent actors with respect to two separate offenses, it was not an abuse of discretion for the CCA to conclude that there was no “other direct nexus” between these cases
9. in this case, it was within the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law for the CCA to conclude that appellant’s case and that of another accused were not closely related where they did not fit within at least one of the following three categories: (1) the servicemembers were coactors involved in a common crime; (2) the servicemembers were involved in a common or parallel scheme; or (3) there was some other direct nexus between the servicemembers whose sentences are sought to be compared; accordingly, the CCA did not abuse its discretion when it held that the cases were not closely related cases whose sentences required comparison

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

1. the CAAF’s review of decisions by the CCA’s on issues of sentence appropriateness is limited to the narrow question of whether there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice or abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs when a CCA’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous, the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law, or the CCA’s decision on the issue at hand is outside the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law
2. in reviewing a CCA’s decision in a sentence disparity case, the CAAF examines three questions: (1) whether the cases are closely related; (2) whether the cases resulted in highly disparate sentences; and (3) whether there is a rational basis for the differences in the adjudged sentences

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

1. the CAAF’s review of decisions by the CCA’s on issues of sentence appropriateness is limited to the narrow question of whether there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice or abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs when a CCA’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous, the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law, or the CCA’s decision on the issue at hand is outside the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law
2. in reviewing a CCA’s decision in a sentence disparity case, the CAAF examines three questions: (1) whether the cases are closely related; (2) whether the cases resulted in highly disparate sentences; and (3) whether there is a rational basis for the differences in the adjudged sentences
3. an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that any cited cases are closely related to his or her case; cases are closely related if they fit within at least one of the following three categories: (1) the servicemembers were coactors involved in a common crime; (2) the servicemembers were involved in a common or parallel scheme; or (3) there was some other direct nexus between the servicemembers whose sentences are sought to be compared