U.S. v. Williams, 84 M.J. 362

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

1. when conducting a sentence reassessment analysis under US v. Winckelmann, 73 MJ 11 (CAAF 2913), a CCA should look to the proceeding that resulted in a sentencing error -- usually the most recent proceeding; because reassessment is conducted in response to a sentencing error, the analysis must examine the proceeding that caused the error, and nothing that happened prior to the rehearing, aside from the sentencing cap, is relevant to the CCA's sentence reassessment
2. in this case, the CCA abused its discretion in reassessing appellant's sentence by using in its analysis the first court-martial's rape offense that had been set aside and dismissed prior to the second court-martial; however, there was no prejudice where (1) the offenses appellant was convicted of had a maximum confinement sentence of life without eligibility for parole, (2) his sentence was capped at 20 years by his first court-martial, and (3) appellant's sentence to 19 years of confinement was not an obvious miscarriage of justice

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

1. the CAAF will set aside a sentence reassessment by a CCA only when necessary to correct an obvious miscarriage of justice or an abuse of discretion

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. in this case, the CCA abused its discretion in reassessing appellant's sentence by using in its analysis the first court-martial's rape offense that had been set aside and dismissed prior to the second court-martial; however, there was no prejudice where (1) the offenses appellant was convicted of had a maximum confinement sentence of life without eligibility for parole, (2) his sentence was capped at 20 years by his first court-martial, and (3) appellant's sentence to 19 years of confinement was not an obvious miscarriage of justice

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Sentence reassessment

1. the CAAF will set aside a sentence reassessment by a CCA only when necessary to correct an obvious miscarriage of justice or an abuse of discretion
2. although the difference in a BCD and a DD may be subjective, for purposes of reviewing a rehearing, a DD is more severe than a BCD; in this case, where appellant was not found guilty at his second court-martial of any offense not considered at his first court-martial, the CCA erred by affirming the DD approved by the CA at appellant's second court-martial that was more severe than the BCD approved by the CA at appellant's first court-martial
3. when conducting a sentence reassessment analysis under US v. Winckelmann, 73 MJ 11 (CAAF 2913), a CCA should look to the proceeding that resulted in a sentencing error -- usually the most recent proceeding; because reassessment is conducted in response to a sentencing error, the analysis must examine the proceeding that caused the error, and nothing that happened prior to the rehearing, aside from the sentencing cap, is relevant to the CCA's sentence reassessment

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

1. the CAAF will set aside a sentence reassessment by a CCA only when necessary to correct an obvious miscarriage of justice or an abuse of discretion