Court Opinion

ID: 9836481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:03.041489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:17.768916
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Senior Judge
(concurring in part and in the result):
I agree with the resolution of Issue II on the basis that appellant failed to meet his burden to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. On Issue I, however, I would hold that there was no error in this case.
An adjudged reduction in grade and automatic forfeitures both take effect on the earlier of—
(A) the date that is 14 days after the date on which the sentence is adjudged; or
(B) the date on which the sentence is approved by the convening authority.
Articles 57(a)(1) and 58b(a)(l), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 USC §§ 857(a)(1) and 858b(a)(l).
A military accused, however, can ask the convening authority to defer (or postpone) these punishments until the convening authority approves the sentence. Articles 57(a)(2) and 58b(a)(l), UCMJ. Neither Article 57 or 58b provides for a staff judge advocate advice on such a request (but cf. Article 6(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 806(b)) or, more importantly, for service of such advice on a military accused. Cf. Article 60(d), UCMJ, 10 USC § 860(d) (providing for service on the accused of the recommendation of the staff judge advocate for final action by convening authority).
In my view, Congress has spoken on the granted issue. It was well aware of the temporary nature of deferment (see Article 57a(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 857a(a)) and chose to provide a streamlined process suited to immediate action by a convening authority unencumbered by the process afforded the accused with respect to a final action." The President, in RCM 1101(c), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1998 ed.), has further delineated the procedure pertaining to deferment by the convening authority, but he too has not required service of advice by the staff judge advocate on the military accused. In view of the nature of this right (a form of temporary clemency) and the need for immediate action, I see no constitutional defect in this military legal procedure. See generally United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998).