Court Opinion

ID: 9836838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:12.652261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.036497
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring):
I concur with the lead opinion because it makes sense and is a fair outcome in the circumstances of this case. Moreover, the result reached in the lead opinion is in line with the principles I outlined in United States v. Davis, 48 MJ 494, 496 (1998) (Sullivan, J., dissenting), and United States v. Hawes, 51 MJ 258, 261 (1999) (Sullivan, J., dissenting).
In the instant ease, Sergeant First Class Eversole was charged with aggravated assault (kicking his first wife,- Mrs. Eversole, in the head with his combat boots), adultery, bigamy, obstruction of justice (pressuring Mrs. Eversole about her testimony at the upcoming trial), and sodomy (with Mrs. Eversole, based solely upon her testimony). At trial, Eversole was acquitted of the sodomy charge but convicted of all other charges. He was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of E-l, to be discharged with a bad-conduct discharge, and to be confined for 6 months. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the aggravated assault conviction for factual insufficiency but affirmed the adultery, bigamy, and obstruction of justice convictions. Instead of remanding for a new sentencing hearing, the court below reassessed the sentence by affirming the same sentence of the trial judge, except for reducing the confinement to 3 months (really no actual relief because the confinement period had already been served at this point).
The record clearly shows that the aggravated assault charge was the only charge of *137violence in this case and, more importantly, that this charge was considered by the prosecution at trial to be the most serious charge. In his closing argument at the sentencing hearing, the trial counsel stated:
Now, some misconduct is worse that others. Here the accused committed adultei'y as one of them. Normally, that’s an Article 15 type of offense, or about a stripe for sentencing purposes. However, the circumstances in this case are a little more aggravated.
____So even in this day and age, adultery is sometime worth more than a stripe.
Bigamy is even more serious. Aggravated assault, more serious still. Bad-conduct discharge and confinement is appropriate for the aggravated assault alone. Kicking someone in the head with combat boots on is very serious, and dangerous. Fortunately serious injury did not result, but it could have----
Finally obstruction of justice. The accused got — or tried, anyway, to get Mrs. Eversole to recant.
(R. at 930-31) (emphasis added). Thus, when the lower court dismissed what the prosecution considered a very significant portion of its criminal trial, it became extremely difficult for an appellate court to determine with any degree of certainty what sentence would have been given if the aggravated assault had not been part of the trial. United States v. Sales, 22 MJ 305, 308 (CMA 1986); see also United States v. Taylor, 51 MJ 390 (1999)
Moreover, to compound this difficulty in determining a new sentence, the record shows that the remaining obstruction of justice charge (appellant’s attempt to get Mrs. Eversole to recant her pretrial claims about sodomy and assault) was clearly tied to the sodomy charge (acquitted at trial) and the aggravated assault charge (dismissed on appeal). In effect, one could view the obstruction of justice charge as the “offense” of appellant trying to get Mrs. Eversole in the pretrial stage to recant two claims of criminal activity (sodomy and assault) that were found to be without merit either at trial or on appeal. This unusual circumstance alone would have made the substance and tone of appellant’s sentencing argument completely different. Moreover, the record is also unusual with respect to the adultery and bigamy charges. The record shows appellant’s Commander and First Sergeant knew (and by implication approved) that appellant moved away from Mrs. Eversole and started living with Susan (who he later married — the basis for the bigamy charge) while he was waiting for his divorce from his first wife, Mrs. Eversole. (R. at 613-14).
The record also shows a soldier with an unusual service record at the time of trial. Appellant was the “instructor of the year on this post in 1994” and “the instructor of the cycle in February of ’96.” (R. at 934). What is unusual is that appellant was tried on January 8, 1996, and March 5-8, 1996. As his defense counsel argued, “He hasn’t given up over this 10-month period. He’s continued to serve in the stellar manner that’s marked his career.” (R. at 934). The record also shows that at the time of sentencing, appellant was 60 days short of being eligible for his 20-year Army retirement.
In sum, there are two main factors that made this case a clear case for resentencing not reassessment: (1) the dismissal of a significant part of the Government’s case at trial and (2) the record, which shows the unusual circumstances of appellant and the interconnection of the remaining charges. As I have said before:
The court below may adjust the sentence based on an error only if it can discern the extent of the error’s effect on the sentencing authority.
United States v. Davis, 48 MJ at 497 (Sullivan, J., dissenting), citing United States v. Sales, 22 MJ at 308.
Robert Browning, the English poet, said: That’s the wise thrush; he sings each song twice over.
Lest you should think he never could recapture the first fine careless rapture.
Home Thoughts From Abroad (1845).
The Court of Criminal Appeals could never recapture a true sentence with certainty in a case like this. It could never capture the spirit, the mood, and the emotional appeal of *138the facts in this case in the unique way a resentencing hearing could provide. Appellant deserves a fair sentence for his crimes, but the sentence must be one in the proper context of a new sentencing argument before an unbiased sentencing authority who will judge appellant on his significantly altered criminal case. Accordingly, I join the lead opinion in ordering a resentencing hearing and a new full clemency process.