UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Andre M. SANDERS, Staff Sergeant 

U.S. Air Force, Appellant 

No. 09-0013 

Crim. App. No. 36443 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Argued April 15, 2009 

Decided May 12, 2009 

PER CURIAM 

Counsel

For Appellant: Captain Tiaundra Sorrell (argued); Colonel Nikki 

A. Hall, Major Shannon A. Bennett, and Captain Michael A. Burnat

(on brief). 

For Appellee: Major Jeremy S. Weber (argued); Colonel Gerald R. 

Bruce (on brief); Major Donna S. Rueppell. 

Military Judge: Barbara E. Shestko 

THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Sanders, No. 09-0013/AF 

2

 PER CURIAM: 

 We granted review to consider whether the military judge 

erred by admitting a handwritten letter found in Appellant’s 

cell during the sentencing phase of the court-martial. We hold 

that any error did not materially prejudice the substantial 

rights of Appellant, and affirm the decision of the United 

States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). 

I. Background 

 A military judge sitting as a general court-martial 

convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of forcible sodomy, 

assault, and indecent assault. Articles 125, 128, and 134, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 925, 928, 

934 (2000). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a 

dishonorable discharge, confinement for fourteen years, and 

reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The CCA affirmed the 

findings and sentence. United States v. Sanders, No. ACM 36443, 

2008 CCA LEXIS 264, at *12, 2008 WL 2852962, at *5 (A.F. Ct. 

Crim. App. July 15, 2008). 

II. Facts 

 Over a one-month period during the summer of 2004, 

Appellant anally sodomized a woman by force while using a 

plastic grocery bag as a makeshift condom; struck another woman 

on the head with his fists; and forcibly penetrated a third 

woman’s vagina with his fingers. During the sentencing phase of 
United States v. Sanders, No. 09-0013/AF 

3

the court-martial, the Government moved to admit a handwritten 

letter found in Appellant’s pretrial confinement cell. The 

letter states the following: 

To Shauna, my wife, I bequeth [sic] every posession [sic] 

and monetary entitlement the world, U.S. Government, 

Insurance agency, etc. owes, gives, entitles me to. 

To Aaron and Kyle, my sons, I give all entitlements to you 

through your loving, loyal, dedicated, God-fearing mother. 

I thank my parents for being my personal heroes and putting 

God into my life from Day One. I bequeth [sic] $14,000 

each of my entitlements to my parents Albert and Carol 

Sanders. 

The judge made her decesion [sic] prior to the trial. She 

constantly remained in eye contact with the female 

prosecutor. This was small-town justice. She didn’t 

listen to our truths; only their lies. 

I didn’t know these people. They lied and they’re [sic] 

lies were ignored by the judge. 

More importantly, I love you Shauna. I’m sorry you have to 

go through this. Justice was not done. 

God is calling me to him. You 3 have given me so much joy. 

I can’t tell you how much I love you. You went from Bunny 

Boo to the most dedicated and loving woman I’ve ever known. 

I loyally and proudli [sic] served the Air Force. The 

people who caused this, I’ve prayed for them and I forgive 

them for lying. 

Shauna, give God the glory always. He is real. 

Use your resources wisely. Move on with your life, keeping 

the boys 1st. Be a smart user of your resources; make your 

resources work for you and multiply. 

I’ve always dreamed that you and the boys would be blessed. 

Now, you will be. 
United States v. Sanders, No. 09-0013/AF 

4

I’m sorry Shauna. You’re the greatest and kindest person I 

know. You are the proof that God is good. 

The letter also contains in its margins Appellant’s name, 

Appellant’s wife’s name, and the statements “Last Will and 

Testament,” “Correction AMS,” and “I didn’t do anything I was 

charged with.” 

Appellant’s counsel objected to the admission of the letter 

on the grounds that it was not proper evidence in aggravation or 

to show rehabilitative potential; there was no factual basis to 

support its admission; it was protected by the spousal 

privilege; and it was otherwise privileged. After hearing 

argument from both sides, the military judge ruled that the 

letter was admissible as evidence of Appellant’s rehabilitative 

potential. On appeal, the CCA held that the letter was 

admissible as aggravation evidence and that it therefore did not 

need to decide its admissibility as rehabilitation evidence. 

Sanders, 2008 CCA LEXIS 264, at *11, 2008 WL 2852962, at *4. 

III. Discussion 

 Under Article 59(a), UCMJ, an error of law with respect to 

a sentence can provide a basis for relief only where that error 

materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused. 

Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) (2002); United States v. 

Bridges, 66 M.J. 246, 248 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (citing Article 59(a), 

UCMJ; United States v. Griggs, 61 M.J. 402, 410 (C.A.A.F. 
United States v. Sanders, No. 09-0013/AF 

5

2005)). Appellant argues that the letter was neither proper 

rehabilitation nor aggravation evidence, that it was highly 

prejudicial because of its attack on the military judge, and 

that in any event the military judge did not conduct the 

required balancing test on the record. Rule for Courts-Martial 

1001; Military Rule of Evidence 403. If there was error in the 

admission of the letter, we conclude that the alleged error was 

not prejudicial under Article 59(a), UCMJ. 

The test for prejudice in a situation like this one is 

whether the error substantially influenced the adjudged 

sentence. Griggs, 61 M.J. at 410 (citing United States v. Boyd, 

55 M.J. 217, 221 (C.A.A.F. 2001)). The letter contains a 

farrago of bequests, assertions, excuses, and advice, some of 

which are favorable to Appellant, although it also attacked the 

military justice system and accused the military judge of 

favoring the prosecution. With respect to the latter, the 

military judge stated that she would not consider the personal 

attack on her contained therein. As the sentencing authority, a 

military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it 

correctly, absent clear evidence to the contrary. Bridges, 66 

M.J. at 248 (citing United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221, 225 

(C.A.A.F. 2007); United States v. Mason, 45 M.J. 483, 484 

(C.A.A.F. 1997)). This Court presumes that a military judge 
United States v. Sanders, No. 09-0013/AF 

6

follows her own rulings. United States v. Hill, 62 M.J. 271, 

276 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (citing United States v. Davis, 44 M.J. 13, 

17 (C.A.A.F. 1996)). 

Apart from the personal attack, there is no indication that 

the military judge gave significant weight to the rest of the 

letter in arriving at the adjudged sentence. Appellant was 

convicted of forcible sodomy, assault, and indecent assault. 

For forcible sodomy, the maximum sentence includes confinement 

for life without eligibility for parole. Manual for CourtsMartial, United States pt. IV, para. 51.e(1) (2008 ed.). 

Appellant received confinement for fourteen years. The victim 

of the forcible sodomy charge was cruelly attacked by Appellant, 

and the victims of the assault and indecent assault charges 

narrowly escaped more serious injury. In light of the severity 

of Appellant’s crimes, we are convinced that the admission of 

the letter, if error, did not substantially influence the 

adjudged sentence. 

IV. Decision 

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of 

Criminal Appeals is affirmed.