U.S. v. Williams, 85 M.J. 121

Military Justice Personnel: Prosecution Function: Trial Counsel

1. the Statement of Trial Results is the responsibility of the trial counsel; it is standard practice for the trial counsel, or another member of the base legal office, to input the required information into the form; then, the military judge confirms the correctness of the information and signs the STR; once the form is complete, trial counsel must promptly provide a copy of the signed STR to the individuals listed in RCM 1101(d)

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. Congress has mandated that military judges of a general or special court-martial shall enter into the record of trial a document titled Statement of Trial Results; by statute, the STR must record three categories of information: (1) each plea and findings; (2) the sentence, if any; and (3) such other information as the President may prescribe by regulation
2. RCM 1101(a) requires that after final adjournment of a general or special court-martial, the military judge shall sign and include in the record of trial a Statement of Trial Results that must include: (1) the findings; (2) the sentence; (3) the forum; (4) any limitation on punishment due to a plea agreement; (5) information regarding suspension of the sentence; and (6) other information; with respect to the catchall "other information" category, the STR must include any additional information directed by the military judge or required under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. the CCA is an Article I court, and as such, its authority stems entirely from statute
2. under Article 66(d)(1)(A), UCMJ, the CCA may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as entered into the record under Article 60c, UCMJ
3. consistent with the definitions of findings and sentence in the Rules for Courts-Martial and the case law of the CAAF, the notification Block 32 of the Statement of Trial Results (asking if appellant had been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence) is not part of the findings or sentence and, therefore, the CCA lacked the authority to modify the annotation in that block
4. because the CCA's modification of Block 32 of the Statement of Trial Results was an ultra vires act that exceeded the scope of its authority under Article 66, UCMJ, that modification of the STR must be vacated
5. Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ, authorizes a CCA to provide appropriate relief if the accused demonstrates error or excessive delay in the processing of the court-martial after the judgment was entered into the record under Article 60c, UCMJ; the burden is on the accused to raise the issue before the CCA; in this case, appellant did not raise the issue to the CCA (because the CCA had not yet modified Block 32 of the Statement of Trial Results) and consequently did not trigger the CCA's correction authority under Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ; in addition, even assuming that there was an error in the CCA's modification of Block 32 and that appellant properly raised the issue, Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ, only applies to errors taking place after the judgment was entered into the record, and in this case, any error took place prior to the entry of judgment

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

1. the CAAF has an independent obligation to satisfy itself of its own jurisdiction
2. the CAAF reviews questions of jurisdiction de novo
3. the CAAF reviews de novo whether a CCA acted outside the scope of its Article 66 authority
4. the CAAF's primary source of jurisdiction is Article 67(a), UCMJ, which grants it jurisdiction to review three categories of cases; first, under Article 67(a)(1), UCMJ, it must review all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a CCA, extends to death; second, Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, requires it to review all cases reviewed by a CCA which the JAG orders sent to the CAAF for review; and third, Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ, gives it jurisdiction over all cases reviewed by a CCA in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the CAAF has granted a review; notably, in all three categories of cases, because it can only review cases reviewed by the CCA below, its Article 67 jurisdiction is predicated on the CCA below also having jurisdiction
5. in this case, because the CCA had jurisdiction to review appellant's case under Article 66(b)(3) where appellant was sentenced to a BCD, the CAAF had jurisdiction to review appellant's case when it found good cause to grant review of his petition with respect to the CCA's modification of the Statement of Trial Results
6. per Article 60c(a)(1)(A), UCMJ, the Statement of Trial Results is part of the trial court's "judgment;" and by modifying the STR, the CCA "set aside as incorrect in law" the judgment of the military judge; therefore, under Article 67(c)(1)(B), UCMJ, this Court has authority to vacate the CCA's modification of the STR if it concludes that the CCA lacked the authority to engage in such action
7. it is well established that once the CAAF's jurisdiction attaches, it may act on any issue concerning a matter of law which materially affects the rights of the parties

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

1. the CAAF has an independent obligation to satisfy itself of its own jurisdiction
2. the CAAF reviews questions of jurisdiction de novo
3. the CAAF reviews de novo whether a CCA acted outside the scope of its Article 66 authority
4. determining the scope of the CCA's statutory authority under Article 66, UCMJ, is a matter of law
5. the CAAF has recognized that an accused's sentence does not include collateral consequences of the accused's conviction, such as sex offender registration