Court Opinion

ID: 9907767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 22:01:11.090762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:03.822371
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before
PENLAND, HAYES, and MORRIS
Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee
Vv.
Staff Sergeant JEFFERY L. BUHL
United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20220660

Headquarters, lst Special Forces Command (Airborne)
G. Bret Batdorff and Tyler J. Heimann, Military Judges
Lieutenant Colonel Burt D. Smith, Acting Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Patrick J. McLain, Esquire (on brief and reply brief); Captain Rachel
Marie Rose, JA; Patrick J. McLain, Esquire (on brief on specified issue and reply
brief on specified issue).

For Appellee: Colonel Christopher B. Burgess, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Jacqueline J.
DeGaine, JA; Major Justin L. Talley, JA; Captain Stewart A. Miller, JA (on brief);
Colonel Christopher B. Burgess, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Jacqueline J. DeGaine, JA;
Major Chase C. Cleveland, JA; Captain Stewart A. Miller, JA (on brief on specified
issue).

4 December 2023

PENLAND, Senior Judge:

Where the government overreached in its second prosecution — after a general
court-martial acquitted appellant of the same act charged under a different article -
we grant relief by setting aside the result. Our decision renders appellant’s assigned
error moot.

Appellant, married at the time, met Jin Colorado Springs on 31 October
2020. Based on that night’s sexual activity, [J alleged he sexually assaulted her.
A general court-martial with enlisted members acquitted appellant of that lone
charge and its specification on 1 April 2022.
BUHL — ARMY 20220660

On 21 June 2022, based on the same sexual activity, appellant’s group
commander notified him he was considering nonjudicial punishment for one
specification of extramarital sexual conduct, in violation of Article 134, Uniform
Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 [UCMJ]. Sometime in August 2022,
appellant demanded trial by court-martial. Apparently aware of this demand,
appellant’s battalion commander preferred another lone charge and specification for
that alleged offense on 12 September 2022, and he transmitted the case to the group
commander, recommending a “BCD Special Court-Martial.” The same day, the
group commander also recommended a “BCD Special Court-Martial.”! On 21
September 2022, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the convening authority
refer the case to a special court-martial with members.

The convening authority referred the case as recommended, and appellant
requested trial by military judge alone. The military judge convicted appellant
contrary to his plea and sentenced him to a reprimand. We review the case under
Article 66(b)(1), UCMJ, which Congress recently amended to expand our
jurisdiction.”

LAW AND DISCUSSION

“A Court of Criminal Appeals shall have jurisdiction over a timely appeal
from the judgment of a court-martial, entered into the record under section 860c(a)
of this title (article 60c(a)), that includes a finding of guilty.” Article 66, UCMJ.

“The principle prohibiting unreasonable multiplication of charges is one that
is well established in the history of military law.” United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J.
334, 336 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “An unnecessary multiplication of forms of charge for
the same offense is always to be avoided.” /d. at 337, (quoting William Winthrop,
Military Law and Precedents 143 (2d ed. 1920 Reprint)). All known offenses should
ordinarily be handled in a single trial to avoid prosecutorial overreaching. Id. Citing
Rule for Courts Martial 307(c)(4) [R.C.M.] and 601(e)(2) (Rule and Discussion)
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2000 ed.) [MCM, 2000].

We consider five factors when determining whether an unreasonable
multiplication of charges exists: (1) Did appellant object at trial? (2) Is each charge
and specification aimed at a distinctly separate criminal act? (3) Does the number of

' We interpret these as recommendations for referral to a special court-martial under
Article 16(c)(1), UCMS.

* Under a recent amendment to Article 66, UCMJ, an appellant may elect, as
appellant did here, to have a court-martial resulting in a finding of guilty reviewed
by the service courts of criminal appeals. See Pub. L. No. 117-263, § 544, 136 Stat.
2582.
BUHL — ARMY 20220660

charges and specifications misrepresent or exaggerate appellant’s criminality? (4)
Does the number of charges and specifications unfairly increase the appellant’s
punitive exposure? and (5) Is there any evidence of prosecutorial overreaching or
abuse in the drafting of the charges? /d. at 338. Quiroz further guides, “if we find
the ‘piling on’ of charges so extreme or unreasonable as to necessitate the invocation
of our Article 66(c), UCMJ, authority, we will determine the appropriate remedy on
a case-by-case basis.” Jd.

The Rules for Court-Martial contemplate alleged misconduct like appellant’s
in this case, and their guidance is clear. Regarding disposition of multiple offenses,
“charges and specifications alleging all known offenses by an accused may be
preferred at the same time....What is substantially one transaction should not be
made the basis for an unreasonable multiplication of charges against one person.”
R.C.M. 307(c)(4).> Regarding joinder of offenses, “[i]n the discretion of the
convening authority, two or more offenses charged against an accused may be
referred to the same court-martial for trial, whether serious or minor offenses or
both, regardless whether related.” R.C.M. 601(e)(2). Regarding severance,
“To]ffenses may be severed, but only to prevent manifest injustice.” R.C.M.
906(b)(10)(A). “Ordinarily, all known charges should be tried at a single court-
martial. But see R.C.M. 902A. Joinder of minor and major offenses, or of unrelated
offenses, is not alone a sufficient ground to sever offenses.” Discussion, R.C.M.
906(b)(10).

Before analyzing the fundamental legal issue in this case, we must determine
whether appellant preserved it for appellate review. United States v. Bench, 82 M.J.
388, 392 (C.A.A.F. 2022) (citing United States v. Jones, 78 M.J. 37, 44 (C.A.A.F.
2018)). “Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,
‘waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’” United
States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311, 313 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (quoting United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). When a known right is intentionally waived, it may not
be raised on appeal; forfeited rights, however, are reviewed for plain error. /d.
(citing United States v. Harcrow, 66 M.J. 154, 156 n.1 (C.A.A.F. 2008)). In order to
grant relief under a plain error standard of review, we must find: (1) that there was
error; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3) the error materially prejudiced a
substantial right. United States v. Gomez, 76 M.J. 76, 79 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

Although R.C.M. 905(e) states that the lack of a motion or objection at trial
forfeits the issue, absent waiver, the government on appeal does not assert forfeiture.
This is appropriate, for appellant preserved the issue. Without specifying the
complaint in the form of a motion or objection, the defense protested at length to the
trial judge (and the convening authority) about the government’s repeated efforts to
punish appellant for the same act.

3 When Quiroz was decided, this was part of the MCM’s policy discussion.
BUHL — ARMY 20220660

Civilian Defense Counsel: Will we be back here in 6 months?
Will the government decide to refer charges to another court-
martial for indecent conduct with another? Come up with a story
that somehow [appellant] was engaging in intercourse in [

bed with im at her initiative, while [JJ was present, therefore
commit[ting] some sort of indecent act with another. We don’t
know, because frankly, it’s out of — of the military judge’s
control....But Iam concerned. I am concerned. I’m concerned
about my own integrity, [about] the integrity of the military
justice system....

[N]ow I have a bigger fear and when | tell [appellant] and
anybody in his shoes, when you go to a court-martial and you get
acquitted, that’s the end of it. They bring all known charges that
they want to bring....and you’re done. Though, no matter what
my intent was, and certainly my intent was to be truthful with
[appellant], I am now a liar, because that’s not what happened....

We now turn to the underlying issue. Citing Quiroz, we directed the parties to
submit briefs on the prospect of “prosecutorial overreach...in light of the policy
from the Discussion to RCM 906(b)(10) that all known offenses should be tried
together.” Among other things, we were giving the government an opportunity to
explain the case’s trajectory. The government argues appellant’s demand for a
second court-martial justifies it: “[T]he instant case does not involve a successive
prosecution. Here appellant’s second trial was a product of his own request and
constituted a separate court-martial.” (Appellee specified issue brief, page 7).

First, we are left to wonder how the government perceives appellant’s second
court-martial as anything but successive — it followed the first, and we are certain it
would not have occurred but for the preceding acquittal. Second, the government’s
underlying rationale is unavailing, as it would be if a Soldier demanded court-
martial in the face of nonjudicial punishment stemming from an involuntary
admission. A demand for trial does not absolve a subsequent proceeding of
fundamental infirmity.*

* We note the nonjudicial punishment for extramarital conduct was offered after the
acquittal for appellant’s sexual assault charge, as it indicates the command did not
find that conduct egregious enough to warrant action originally. Not only was this
left off the original charge sheet, but the command also did not offer nonjudicial
punishment simultaneously as an indication they deemed appellant’s actions
inappropriate, albeit not serious enough to warrant charging. The delay in action by
the command until the more serious offense resulted in an acquittal signals a sort of
“buyers” remorse” for their charging decision and an attempt to punish appellant in
another way.
BUHL — ARMY 20220660

Aside from the unpersuasive response that appellant got the trial he
demanded, the government cites RCM 601(e)(2)’s joinder provision as authority to
depart from RCM 906(b)(10)’s policy discussion:>

When read in conjunction, these rules together identify it may be
a® preferred practice for a convening authority to refer all known
charges they determine appropriate for a court-martial to a single
trial; however, the R.C.M. and caselaw are devoid of any
language or precedent to make this a binding requirement on
convening authorities. (Appellee’s specified issue brief, page 8)

Convening authorities fill crucial quasi-judicial roles, and the MCM’s
provisions, whether rules or policy discussions, inform the discretion they must
exercise in handling a case. We agree with the government to a point — such
discretion includes authority to depart from policy. But this leads to our primary
holding: such divergence, including a disposition decision, is subject to review for
an abuse of discretion; and we give little deference to a convening authority who
acts against policy without offering a lawful reason. Simply restating that one may
use discretion is not the same as explaining why one used it a certain way.

Severing offenses is reserved to a military judge’s discretion under R.C.M.
906(b)(10). The convening authority’s action had the same effect, though apparently
not mindful of R.C.M. 906(b)(10)(A)’s command, “only to prevent manifest
injustice.” This leads to our secondary holding: an unreasonable multiplication of
charges can involve one or more courts-martial. We adopt our sister court’s ruling
in United States v. Raynor, which states a fundamental concern underlying the
doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges is the potential for abuse in
prosecutorial discretion; 66 M.J. 693, 698 (A.F. Ct. Crim App. 12 June 2008).
Quiroz, 55 M.J. at 337-338. It would be illogical to prohibit an unreasonable
multiplication of charges in one trial only to allow the government to spread the
same unreasonably multiplied charges over several trials. It would also cause even
greater prejudice to an accused, and our justice system’s credibility, by preventing
merger of the findings or sentence, an otherwise available and tailored remedy.

> The government also writes paradoxically of R.C.M. 306:

R.C.M. 306 provides commanders with significant autonomy in determining
how to dispose of misconduct but directs they should “review and consider”
the non-binding disposition factors contained in Appendix 2.1 to assist in
their disposition decisions. (Appellee’s specified issue brief, page 7)(citation
omitted)(emphasis added).

° It unequivocally is the preferred practice, conveyed by the President’s rulemaking
authority under Article 36, UCMJ.
BUHL — ARMY 20220660

United States v. Forrester, 76 M.J. 389, 394 (C.A.A.F. 2017). See also R.C.M.
906(b)(12).

The factors influencing the convening authority’s and prosecutors’ discretion
remain unknown to us — that is why we specified the issue for briefing. Relying on
our common sense and experience as practitioners, we are gravely concerned that
this record bears the marks of simple dissatisfaction with the first trial’s result, then
overreaching by capriciously restyling and re-prosecuting the offense as extramarital
conduct, when it was clear the government had the discretion, motivation, and
evidence to charge that offense previously. Where the government offers no reason
beyond those discussed here for failing to follow the policy of R.C.M.
906(b)(10)(A), we find an abuse of discretion and an unreasonable multiplication of
charges.’

The United States Supreme Court has warned that prosecution of closely
related individual offenses at separate trials may constitute impermissible denial of
that fundamental fairness required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Ciucci v. Illinois, 356 U.S. 571, 575 (1958). The purpose of
compulsory joinder statutes is to “prevent the prosecution from substantially proving
a crime in a trial in which the crime is not charged, and then in effect retrying the
defendant for the same offense in a trial where it is charged.” State v. Todd, 262
Kan. 916, 919, 941 P.2d 1374, 1376 (1997).

CONCLUSION

The finding of guilty and the sentence are SET ASIDE. The Charge and its
Specification are DISMISSED. All rights, privileges, and property, of which

7 Even if appellant did forfeit this argument by failing to object, we would still find
the error to be plain for all of the same reasons. See Gladue at 313.

® This doctrine is not unique to military justice; several states use a similar
constraint. California, for example, has long settled law which states:

When, as here, the prosecution is or should be aware of more
than one offense in which the same act or course of conduct
plays a significant part, all such offenses must be prosecuted in a
single proceeding unless joinder is prohibited or severance
permitted for good cause. Failure to unite all such offenses will
result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted
if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or
conviction and sentence.

Kellett v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 2d 822, 827 (Cal. 1966).
BUHL — ARMY 20220660

appellant has been deprived by virtue of the findings and sentence set aside by this
decision are ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58b(c) and 75(a).

Judge HAYES and Judge MORRIS concur.

FOR THE COURT:

JAMES W. HERRING, JR.
Clerk of Court