Document: 353 U.S. 569 77 S.Ct. 1027 1 L.Ed.2d 1045 Chester E. JACKSON, Petitioner,v.John C. TAYLOR, Acting Warden. No. 619. Argued April 30, 1957. Decided June 3, Rehearing Denied July 8, See 354 944, 1421. Mr. Urban P. Van Susteren, Appleton, Wis., for the petitioner. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered opinion of Court. This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which petitioner, soldier, attacks validity sentence 20 years he now serving as result his conviction by an Army court-martial offense attempted rape. While United States Korea, was found guilty general separate offenses premeditated murder and rape Korean woman. He given aggregate sentence1 life imprisonment both offenses. The board review 'incorrect law fact' finding on charge, but it approved As to sentence, 'that only so much provides dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor correct fact.' modified, sentence. v. Fowler, 2 C.M.R. 336. petitioner makes no attack original charge its affirmance board. But alleging that 'the action Review Board reserving twenty (20) imposed Court-Martial crime murder, even though had reserved set aside conviction, null void.' District Court denied writ discharged rule show cause, Jackson Humphrey, 135 F.Supp. 776, holding reversing properly modified not required order new trial or remand case resentencing court-martial. Appeals, unanimous opinion, affirmed. Taylor, 3 Cir., 234 F.2d 611, 612. It held upon affirming authorized 'affirm * such part amount finds correct,' citing Article 66(c) Uniform Code Military Justice, 64 Stat. 128, 50 U.S.C. § 653(c), U.S.C.A. 653(c). We believe must stand. Petitioner tried with two other soldiers each convicted same offenses, Each also sentenced imprisonment. record then forwarded convening authority where convictions sentences were approved. In accordance military procedure, authority's approval office Judge Advocate General Army. That board, already stated, unsupported them aside, sustained sentences. sought further petition before Appeals. No question regarding modify raised without opinion. U.S.C.M.A. 713. soldiers, having started serve their sentences, different prisons. filed district imprisoned issue manner described. A conflict between Circuits has resulted2 we granted certiorari, limited gross question, resolve this settle important administration Code. 352 940, 266, 236. claims deprivation constitutional rights. argues under should have ordered either rehearing be released because impose 20-year 4 derives power from 66 653, 653(c).3 are concerned more particularly subsection (c) section. provides: 5 '(c) referred it, shall act respect findings authority. affirm guilty, fact determines, basis entire record, considering weigh evidence, judge credibility witnesses, determine controverted questions fact, recognizing court saw heard witnesses.' 6 Here relied *.' argues, however, 'part amount' supports reference officer who, after guilt returned, advised members open punishment might impose. view told alternatives, death Art. War 92, 62 640.* made rape, maximum years. Since single covering findings,4 entered there and, therefore, entry thereon entirely independent imposition beyond power. bases conclusion wholly deduction. contends since follows did him charge. why go through useless motion instructing when imprisonment? could been heavier unless death. What possible good would done court-martial, if authorized, add any number onto sentence? addition authorizes construe Act Congress require doing act. 7 But, says, simple arithmetic shows finding. reasons carries minimum imprisonment, exact received. therefore included claims. true broken down permitted. However, analysis overlooks requirement practice. Carter McClaughry, 1902, 183 365, 393, 22 181, 192, 46 L.Ed. McDonald Lee, 1954, 217 619, 622; Winthrop, Law Precedents (2d ed. 1920), 404. here covered convictions. us do strike long practice, over our cases. cannot do. 8 remains whether aside. Reviewing authorities broad powers law.5 Unlike civilian most jurisdictions, initial Otherwise performs functions like those jury than court. composed laymen. 25 Code, 116, 589, 589. review, modification, sentence-adjustment rest elsewhere body 9 first provided authority—the commanding who directed empowered reduce increase it. can facts, disapprove believes erroneous appropriateness regard what considered findings. 651, 651. powers. Manual Courts-Martial, (1951), c. 17. 10 next stage concerned. conducted legally-trained officers.6 Such boards received statutory ecognition 1920. 1/2, 41 797 799.** At time gave General, records legal sufficiency. By 1949 increased though, these still appropriateness. 50(g), 637.*** was, Judicial Council.7 11 Against background law, began drafting Justice. Their work culminated, far concerned, 66(c), supra. language section ambiguous ambiguity resolved favor accused. words clear. may setence, precisely here. affirmed part, years, Were themselves unclear, teachings legislative history compel result. 12 drafted committee chairmanned Professor Edmund M. Morgan, Jr. testifying Senate Subcommittee bill, Morgan stated 13 'has very extensive practically, sentences; provisions stipulate justified whole record. gives Hearings Committee Armed Services 857 H.R. 4080, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 42. 14 officials opposed giving alter Id., 262, 285. nevertheless decided 311. Report augments sentences.8 study House Representatives leads conclusion. H.R.Rep. 491, 31; 95 Cong.Rec. 5729. enacted committees. manifest intent exercise just exercised here.9 15 Boards altering inception provision. These alterations attacked courts shown list cases collected Hastie F.2d, page 614, note 3. objects, lesser matter initially. objection addressed Congress. laid take away restrict enter courts. know attitude guilt. argument, falls based pure conjecture. one say avoided necessity conjecture speculation placing well. Likewise apportionment intended speculation.10 procedure need concern ourselves problems. appropriate. To shut one's eyes realities custom. 16 Finally suggests remanded find points none.11 reason is, course, nature impractical unfeasible purpose sentencing alone. Keith, 442, 451, 34, 43 (1952). Even admits now, six trial, attempt reconvene originally. neither continuity nor situs often sits hear case. Because service, scattered throughout world within short concluded. Recognizing impossibility alternative court-martial.12 all make determination learn reading merely substitute group nonparticipants another. thought appropriate expeditiously, intelligently, fairly. national disparities personnel appropriately proper disposition known problems inherent proceedings procedures adopted largely prior law. judgment selecting process chose. 17 Affirmed. 18 BRENNAN, whom CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK DOUGLAS join, dissenting. 19 I am unable see how fairly characterized grants 653. exclusively There valid embracing Board's remit excessive portion operate. subscribe Major said similar De Coster Madigan, 1955, 223 906, 909—910, allowed discharged: '* obviously jurisdiction plaintiff charged, fully deal him. Officer instructed instructions life-imprisonment, Of suggestion term plus ridiculous, equally assertion lacked necessary award based. Imposition essential step criminal justice. Here, statute, step; failed so.' App. 521, specifically provides, inter alia: 'The will adjudge accused guilty.' 'aggregate' 'gross' guilt, single, unitary entirety, many be. Carl Coster, codefendants Appeals Seventh Circuit. 906. codefendant, Harriel release Fifth Wilkinson 1956, 615. case, certiorari petitioner's Fowler's revised recodified 70A 59, (Supp. IV) 866, 866. changes pertinent Other sections cited form source they appeared during course litigation. appears 36—78, (Sup. §§ 801—934, 801—934. Now 712, 714. 1, For detailed Fratcher, Appellate American Law, Mo.L.Rev. (1949). 66(a) 653(a), 653(a) '(a) armed forces constitute less three officers civilians, member bar Federal highest State States.' ** 51(a), 638, 49, 635, 661 *** determines conforms weight evidence error materially prejudices substantial rights illegal inappropriate. contemplated establish uniformity forces.' S.Rep. 486, 28. Commentators recognized enactment See, e.g., Currioer Currier Services, Vand.L.Rev. 241 (1953). greatest change brought about duties appropriate.' 242. 65 Yale L.J. 413. complains excessive. speculate done, interfere discretion review. 'vicious circumstances case,' Furthermore, legally imposed, severity reviewable civil 401, 195, Field, 379, (1955), hesitatingly suggested dictum return solely reassessment indicated practice unlikely 'obvious compelling practical character.' 385, C.M.R., 9. explicitly refused express concerning desirability There, mandatory has, Voorhees, 509, 543, 83, 117 (1954). well point out permits 'reconsideration revision' 'only participated sentence.' 127, 649, 130. impossible passage nearly every reassembled. On hand, type rehearing, requires 'take place case.' (Emphasis added.) 63 650, 650. capable—if capable—as

Category: 1