Source: http://www.caaflog.com/category/september-2015-term/united-states-v-captain/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:50:21+00:00

Document:
CAAF decided the Marine Corps case of United States v. Captain, 75 M.J. 99, No. 15-0172/MC (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on Thursday, February 4, 2016. The court finds no prejudice to the appellant in his counsel’s failure to present extrinsic evidence of his prior good service and to maintain a written record of the appellant’s agreement to request a punitive discharge. However, the court finds that the convening authority’s action is ambiguous with respect to the punitive discharge, and remands the case for corrective action by the convening authority.
I. Whether trial defense counsel provided inefective assistance of counsel by failing to offer evidence, other than an unsworn statement, in extenuation or mitigation, and by conceding the appropriateness of a dishonorable discharge.
II. Whether the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming a sentence that included a dishonorable discharge when the convening authority’s action did not approve one.
The remaining part of the adjudged sentence as adjudged consisting of forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years, 6 months, 0 days, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade is approved.
Slip op. at 9. The convening authority’s action did not explicitly approve the adjudged discharge, but it included a statement that “the punitive discharge will be executed, after final judgment.” Slip op. at 9.
On appeal, the appellant asserted that he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel and that the convening authority’s action did not approve the punitive discharge, prohibiting its execution.
CAAF unanimously rejects both of these claims. For the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Chief Judge Erdmann does not specifically address whether the appellant’s counsel was deficient, but rather finds that the appellant was not prejudiced because the record reflects that the military judge considered his good military character and that the appellant agreed to concede that a punitive discharge was appropriate. For the convening authority’s action, Chief Judge Erdmann finds it ambiguous because of the lack of explicit approval coupled with the reference to future execution. Because the action is ambiguous, CAAF remands for a new action.
United States v. Captain, No. 15-0172/MC (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.
United States v. Riggins, No. 15-0334/MC (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.
In accordance with a pretrial agreement, the appellant pleaded guilty, at a general court-martial composed of a military judge alone, of one specification of one specification of abusive sexual contact in violation of Article 120. During the sentencing phase of the court-martial, the appellant’s detailed military defense counsel “did not present any extrinsic evidence of Sgt Captain’s good military character,” and further “during his sentencing argument, trial defense counsel asked the military judge to sentence Sgt Captain to a dishonorable discharge.” App. Br. at 2. The military judge sentenced the appellant to confinement for 5 years and 6 months, reduction to E-1, total forfeitures, a $50,000 fine, and a dishonorable discharge.
Gov’t Br. at 19 (quoting action). This approval omits the adjudged dishonorable discharge.
The appellant’s case was forwarded for automatic review by the Navy-Marine Corps CCA, where the appellant asserted ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) in his defense counsel’s failure to present sentencing evidence and argument in favor of a dishonorable discharge. In particular, the appellant asserted that he did not consent to his defense counsel asking the court-martial to adjudge a punitive discharge. The CCA ordered a DuBay hearing (a post-trial fact-finding hearing), and then it rejected the appellant’s claims of IAC. The DuBay found, and the CCA agreed, that the appellant’s defense counsel made a tactical decision to not call witnesses (for fear of evidence the Government would offer in rebuttal), and that the appellant and his counsel had agreed to request a dishonorable discharge in the hope that it would lead to a reduced sentence of confinement (even though counsel failed to create a record of that agreement). United States v. Captain, No. 201300137 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jul. 27, 2014).
Notably, the CCA’s decision does not address the convening authority’s failure to include the punitive discharge in his action approving the sentence. It is unclear if the appellant raised this issue before the CCA.
Two significant and seemingly bright-line military precedents will be tested in CAAF’s review in Captain.
First, military law is clear that “when defense counsel does seek a punitive discharge or does concede the appropriateness of such a discharge – even as a tactical step to accomplish mitigation of other elements of a possible sentence – counsel must make a record that such advocacy is pursuant to the accused’s wishes.” United States v. Dresen, 40 M.J. 462, 465 (C.M.A. 1994). No such record was made in this case.
Second, “in light of the convening authority’s broad discretion to provide relief from the adjudged sentence and the importance of this role in the court-martial process, when the plain language of the convening authority’s action is facially complete and unambiguous, its meaning must be given effect.” United States v. Wilson, 65 M.J. 140, 141 (C.A.A.F. 2007). “Accordingly, the convening authority must exercise care in drafting the action.” Ibid. The convening authority’s action in this case appears unambiguous in its failure to approve the adjudged punitive discharge.
I. WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY FAILING TO OFFER EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN AN UNSWORN STATEMENT, IN EXTENUATION OR MITIGATION AND BY CONCEDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE.
The NMCCA’s opinion is available here.
United States v. Spurling, __ M.J. __, No. 15-0228/MC (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2015) (summary disp.) (discussed here).
United States v. McIntosh, No. 14-0685/AF (rev. granted Jan. 15, 2015) (discussed here).
United States v. Engler, __ M.J. __, No. 15-0077/MC (C.A.A.F. Dec. 3, 2014) (summary disp.) (discussed here).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.