U.S. v. Arroyo, 86 M.J. 89

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. a CCA abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably as a matter of law

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

1. in Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ, 10 USC § 866(d)(1) (2018), Congress dictated that a CCA may affirm only the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved; it is a settled premise that in exercising this statutory mandate, a CCA has discretion to approve only that part of a sentence that it finds should be approved, even if the sentence is correct as a matter of law; a CCA's authority to conduct sentence appropriateness review is an awesome, plenary, de novo power of review
2. although a CCA could err by improperly using a plea agreement during its sentence appropriateness review, a CCA is not prohibited from acknowledging the plea agreement's existence or discussing the context in which the parties reached the agreement
3. an accused's own sentence proposal is a reasonable indication of the sentence's probable fairness to the accused
4. to ascertain the fairness and thus the appropriateness of an adjudged sentence, the CCA may consider the context in which the parties reached the plea agreement, including the benefits from that agreement to the accused
5. because the existence of a plea agreement is a material consideration in a CCA's sentence appropriateness review, the CCA did not abuse its discretion when it acknowledged the benefits appellant received under the plea agreement

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

1. the CAAF's review of a CCA's decision on sentence appropriateness is limited to the narrow question of whether there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice or an abuse of discretion

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

1. the CAAF's review of a CCA's decision on sentence appropriateness is limited to the narrow question of whether there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice or an abuse of discretion