U.S. v. Flores, 84 M.J. 277

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Generally

1. in the NDAA for FY 2017, Congress amended Article 56, UCMJ, generally, and added Article 56(c)(2), UCMJ, to eliminate unitary sentencing in cases in which a military judge alone sentences the accused to a fine or confinement for more than one offense; in such cases, the military judge must now specify the fine or confinement for each offense; Article 56(c)(2), UCMJ, thus replaced unitary sentences with what might be called segmented sentences

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

1. when a CCA conducts a sentence appropriateness review under Article 66(d), UCMJ, the CCA must consider the appropriateness of each segment of a segmented sentence and the appropriateness of the sentence as a whole
2. because Article 66(d), UCMJ, requires a CCA to review the appropriateness not only of the sentence but also of each part or amount of the sentence, a CCA must review the appropriateness of each segmented period of confinement and each segmented amount of any fine; in addition to reviewing the appropriateness of each segment, a CCA must also continue to review the appropriateness of the entire sentence
3. the CAAF's precedents do not require a CCA to explain its reasoning when assessing the reasonableness of a sentence; however, if a CCA's opinion reveals a misunderstanding of the applicable law, the CAAF may require a new sentence appropriateness review
4. in this case, although the CCA did not specifically state that it reviewed the appropriateness of each segment of the segmented sentences, it did not abuse its discretion in conducting its sentence appropriateness review, where (1) the CCA did not express any incorrect statement of law as to sentence appropriateness review, (2) the CCA considered the appropriateness of each segment of confinement because it looked carefully and fully at the aggravating evidence pertaining to each of the offenses of which appellant was found guilty, (3) the CCA explained that the pretrial agreement required any sentences of confinement to run concurrently, and a requirement that sentences run concurrently can only exist when there are segmented sentences; and (4) the CCA recognized that it had to consider the maximum period of confinement for each offense

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

1. the CAAF reviews matters of statutory interpretation de novo
2. in reviewing the exercise of the CCA's power to review the appropriateness of a sentence, the CAAF ask if the CCA abused its discretion or acted inappropriately, that is, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, as a matter of law
3. the CAAF's precedents do not require a CCA to explain its reasoning when assessing the reasonableness of a sentence; however, if a CCA's opinion reveals a misunderstanding of the applicable law, the CAAF may require a new sentence appropriateness review

Trial Stages: Appeals: Scope of Review

1. an appellate court is not bound by the parties' interpretation of a statutory provision

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

1. an appellate court reviews matters of statutory interpretation de novo
2. in reviewing the exercise of the CCA's power to review the appropriateness of a sentence, the CAAF asks if the CCA abused its discretion or acted inappropriately, that is, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, as a matter of law