U.S. v. Batres, 86 M.J. 152

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Double Jeopardy

1. the Double Jeopardy Clause protects criminal defendants not just from successive prosecutions for the same offense, but also for multiple punishments for the same offense
2. in the military justice system, Double Jeopardy protections are vindicated by the doctrine of multiplicity, which applies the Supreme Court's Blockburger v. US, 284 US 299 (1932), elemental analysis

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. in 2016, Congress amended Article 56, UCMJ, 10 USC § 856 (Supp. IV 2013-2017), introducing segmented sentencing to the military justice system; under this new sentencing regime, a military judge must specify both a term of confinement for each offense for which an accused is found guilty and whether those terms will run consecutively or concurrently

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Generally

1. to prevail on a nonconstitutional forfeited issue, an appellant must demonstrate that there was error, that the error was plain or obvious, and that the error was materially prejudicial to the appellant

Trial Stages: Merits: Multiplicity for Findings

1. if charges are multiplicious, they must be so both for findings and for sentence, so there is no separate doctrine of multiplicity of offenses for sentencing purposes

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Generally

1. in 2016, Congress amended Article 56, UCMJ, 10 USC § 856 (Supp. IV 2013-2017), introducing segmented sentencing to the military justice system; under this new sentencing regime, a military judge must specify both a term of confinement for each offense for which an accused is found guilty and whether those terms will run consecutively or concurrently
2. in this case, the version of RCM 1002 which governed appellant's sentencing provided that the terms of confinement for two or more specifications shall run concurrently when each specification involved the same victim and the same act or transaction
3. the version of RCM 1002 which governed appellant's sentencing that prohibited consecutive terms of confinement if the convictions arose out of the same act or transaction was an exercise of the President's discretionary authority to ensure that the charges and specifications against an accused, even if they were not multiplicious or otherwise unlawful, did not unduly exaggerate an accused's punitive exposure; the provision was a limit on the total punishment that a convicted servicemember would receive below that which the Double Jeopardy protections of the Constitution would otherwise allow
4. the word "transaction" in the version of RCM 1002 which governed appellant's sentencing that prohibited consecutive terms of confinement if the convictions arose out of the same act or transaction meant a series of occurrences or an aggregate of acts which are logically related to a single course of criminal conduct

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Multiplicity for Sentencing

1. if charges are multiplicious, they must be so both for findings and for sentence, so there is no separate doctrine of multiplicity of offenses for sentencing purposes

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

1. interpretation of the Rules for Courts-Martial is a question of law that the CAAF reviews de novo
2. the CAAF reviews findings of fact by a military judge for clear error
3. when an appellant forfeits an issue at the trial level, the CAAF reviews a military judge's decision on that issue for plain error

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. to prevail on a nonconstitutional forfeited issue, an appellant must demonstrate that there was error, that the error was plain or obvious, and that the error was materially prejudicial to the appellant
2. in this case, when the military judge ruled that appellant's segmented sentences should run consecutively and appellant's defense counsel failed to object or otherwise challenge the military judge's rulings, appellant forfeited his opportunity to litigate this issue at trial, and accordingly, an appellate court reviews the military judge's decision for plain error
3. in this case, even assuming that the military judge erred in his implicit determination that the charged offenses did not constitute the "same transaction" for purposes of the version of RCM 1002 which governed appellant's sentencing that prohibited consecutive terms of confinement if the convictions arose out of the same act or transaction, that error was not plain or obvious where (1) the meaning of the term "transaction," at least in the context of this specific rule, was a matter of first impression, and (2) the CCA came to the same conclusion as the military judge after performing a rigorous and detailed analysis of the meaning of "transaction"

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

1. interpretation of the Rules for Courts-Martial is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo
2. an appellate court reviews findings of fact by a military judge for clear error
3. when an appellant forfeits an issue at the trial level, an appellate court reviews a military judge's decision on that issue for plain error
4. to prevail on a nonconstitutional forfeited issue, an appellant must demonstrate that there was error, that the error was plain or obvious, and that the error was materially prejudicial to the appellant