Court Opinion

ID: 9836776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:01.456108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.856677
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Judge
(concurring):
I agree with the majority’s decision on the merits of the granted issue. I write separately to address the question of jurisdiction, which the Government asserts is “a matter of considerable debate.” Answer to Final Brief at 3.
By deciding the merits of the issue, this Court has sub silentio asserted its jurisdiction. Unlike Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 119 S.Ct. 1538, 143 L.Ed.2d 720 (1999), this case does not involve our authority under the All Writs Act, nor does it involve the collateral consequences of a court-martial sentence. This case is before us on direct review of an issue whether the sentence is being executed in a manner that increases its severity to the extent that it violates the Eighth Amendment and Article 55. Thus, in my view, this Court is well within its jurisdiction under Article 67(c), UCMJ, 10 USC § 867(c), to act “with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed ... by the Court of Criminal Appeals.”