Court Opinion

ID: 9926123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 20:02:20.430558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:04.897494
License: Public Domain

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
               C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
                             ________________________

                              No. ACM 40091 (f rev)
                             ________________________

                                UNITED STATES
                                    Appellee
                                          v.
                           Dakota R. BAKER
            Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                             ________________________

         Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                              Upon Further Review
                            Decided 23 January 2024
                             ________________________

Military Judge: Bryon T. Gleisner (pre-referral judicial proceeding);
Elizabeth M. Hernandez (pretrial motions and arraignment); Christina
M. Jimenez; Dayle P. Percle (remand).
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 4 March 2021 by GCM convened at Shep-
pard Air Force Base, Texas. Sentence entered by military judge on 16
March 2021 and re-entered on 4 October 2022: Dishonorable discharge,
confinement for 15 months, and reduction to E-1.
For Appellant: Major Matthew L. Blyth, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Major John
P. Patera, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs, USAF; Major Lecia E.
Wright, USAF; Captain Jocelyn Q. Wright, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne,
Esquire; Alexis R. Wooldridge (legal intern). 1
Before JOHNSON, ANNEXSTAD, and MERRIAM, Appellate Military
Judges.
Judge MERRIAM delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief
Judge JOHNSON and Senior Judge ANNEXSTAD joined.

1 Alexis R. Wooldridge was a legal intern who was at all times supervised by an attor-

ney admitted to practice before this court.
                 United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

                             ________________________

    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
                             ________________________

MERRIAM, Judge:
    A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone con-
victed Appellant, in accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agree-
ment, of three specifications of sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Article
120b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920b, and one
specification of receiving and viewing child pornography, in violation of Article
134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934.2 The adjudged sentence was a dishonorable dis-
charge, confinement for 15 months, and reduction to the grade of E-1.
    Appellant raised three issues on appeal: (1) whether his sentence to a dis-
honorable discharge is inappropriately severe; (2) whether the convening au-
thority violated Appellant’s basic due process rights when she decided to take
no action on sentence before allowing Appellant five days to respond to the
victim’s post-trial submission of matters in accordance with Rule for Courts-
Martial (R.C.M.) 1106(d)(3); and (3) whether trial counsel’s sentencing argu-
ment improperly referenced victim impact and criticized Appellant’s apology
when no victim impact evidence had been admitted.
   We previously addressed Appellant’s second assignment of error, holding
the convening authority erred by not providing Appellant the opportunity to
rebut matters submitted by the victim under R.C.M. 1106A, and remanding
the record to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary. United States v.
Baker, No. ACM 40091, 2022 CCA LEXIS 523, at *9–10 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 6
Sep. 2022) (unpub. op.). Upon remand, the successor convening authority pro-
vided Appellant the required opportunity to respond to the victim’s post-trial
submission of matters and Appellant did so. The successor convening authority
then signed a new Decision on Action memorandum, taking no action on find-
ings or sentence, and the military judge issued a corrected entry of judgment.
    Upon return of the record to this court, Appellant submitted a supple-
mental brief renewing his first and third assignments of error, providing addi-
tional argument regarding the former. Now considering Appellant’s assign-
ments of error, we find no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substan-
tial rights, and we affirm the findings and sentence.

2 All references in this opinion to the UCMJ and to the Rules for Courts-Martial are to

the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

                                            2
                 United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

                                  I. BACKGROUND
    Appellant accessed the website Omegle.com (Omegle), an online chat ser-
vice that paired users randomly with other users to communicate anonymously
in a one-on-one digital chat session. On 8 March 2020, a few months after Ap-
pellant arrived at his first permanent duty station, Omegle paired Appellant
with JA for a chat session. Though JA initially told Appellant she was 15 years
old, later in the roughly 20-minute-long Omegle chat, JA admitted to Appellant
she was only 8 years old. At some point during the Omegle chat, Appellant
indicated to JA that he was a member of the United States Air Force.
    Appellant and JA transitioned from Omegle, which does not require user
registrations, to Instagram, another social media service that allows registered
users to interact directly, but non-anonymously. After obtaining JA’s Insta-
gram handle, which referenced JA’s interest in crafts, Appellant looked at pic-
tures JA posted on her Instagram account, then began messaging her on In-
stagram. After reviewing the pictures of JA and her family, Appellant came to
believe JA was, in fact, 8 years old. Appellant then asked JA the following
questions via Instagram direct message: “Have you ever saw a d[*]ck in your
life? . . . What if [a d[*]ck] was inside u? . . . R u horny?? . . . [and] R u touching
your vagina?”
   During this same Instagram conversation, JA told Appellant “It’s okay if
you want to see anything from me,” and Appellant replied, “Your boobs.” In
response, JA sent to Appellant a photograph of herself with her shirt lifted up,
revealing a bare and undeveloped chest and areola. Appellant responded to the
photograph with the message, “You r 8 aren’t u[?]” During his guilty plea in-
quiry, Appellant explained that this response was a reflection of the fact that
though he knew JA was 8 years old, he had not imagined her body would look
the way it did.
    While still conversing with JA, Appellant used his cell phone to take and
send to JA a photograph of his erect penis. JA mentioned she had a video of
herself that Appellant assumed would be sexual in nature. Appellant asked JA
to send him the video, JA did so, and Appellant viewed it. The video, which
was less than 30 seconds long, depicted JA naked from the waist down, legs
spread revealing her genitalia, and using her index finger to penetrate her la-
bia and vagina.

                                            3
                United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

                                 II. DISCUSSION
A. Whether Appellant’s Sentence is Inappropriately Severe
   1. Law
    We review issues of sentence appropriateness de novo. United States v.
Lane, 64 M.J. 1, 2 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (footnote omitted). This court “may affirm
only . . . the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as [it] finds cor-
rect in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should
be approved.” Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(1). Courts “assess sen-
tence appropriateness by considering the particular appellant, the nature and
seriousness of the offense[s], the appellant’s record of service, and all matters
contained in the record of trial.” United States v. Sauk, 74 M.J. 594, 606 (A.F.
Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (en banc) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (citation
omitted). Although this court has broad discretion in determining whether a
particular sentence is appropriate, and Article 66, UCMJ, empowers us to “do
justice,” we have no authority to “grant mercy” by engaging in exercises of
clemency. United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 146 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (citation
omitted).
    “A dishonorable discharge should be reserved for those who should be sep-
arated under conditions of dishonor, after having been convicted of offenses
usually recognized in civilian jurisdictions as felonies, or of offenses of a mili-
tary nature requiring severe punishment.” R.C.M. 1003(a)(8)(B). “A bad-con-
duct discharge is less severe than a dishonorable discharge and is designed as
a punishment for bad-conduct rather than as a punishment for serious offenses
of either a civilian or military nature.” R.C.M. 1003(a)(8)(C).
    A plea agreement with the convening authority is “some indication of the
fairness and appropriateness of [an appellant’s] sentence.” United States v. Pe-
rez, No. ACM S32637 (f rev), 2021 CCA LEXIS 501, at *7 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.
28 Sep. 2021) (unpub. op.) (footnote omitted).
    “Sex offender registration operates independently of the sentence adjudged
and remains a collateral consequence.” United States v. Talkington, 73 M.J.
212, 216–17 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (citations omitted). A “[s]ex offender registration
[requirement] is a collateral consequence of the conviction alone, not the sen-
tence.” Id. at 213.
    In applying our statutory discretionary authority to approve only that part
of a sentence that “should be approved,” 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(1), a legal error or
deficiency is required. United States v. Gay, 75 M.J. 264, 268 (C.A.A.F. 2016)
(first citing United States v. Fagan, 59 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F. 2004); and then cit-
ing United States v. Wheelus, 49 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. 1998)); see also United
States v. White, 2022 CCA LEXIS 344, at *47 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 10 Jun. 2022)
(unpub. op.) (“Post-trial events may warrant sentence relief when a legal

                                          4
                  United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

deficiency or error exacerbates an otherwise appropriate sentence.”). Although
we consider all matters in the record, including sex offender registration, we
may attribute “little weight to that fact.” White, unpub. op. at *46.
    2. Analysis
    Appellant’s claim that his sentence to a dishonorable discharge is inappro-
priately severe rests on three main arguments: (1) the sentence does not “ac-
count for [Appellant’s] mental struggles and their connection to the offenses;”
(2) “the dishonorable discharge strips [Appellant] of benefits that are crucially
important to his continued rehabilitation;” and (3) under the law of the state
where he now resides, Appellant must register as a sex offender for 25 years
and face decades of stigma as a sex offender.
    Regarding mental health challenges, Appellant asserts the military judge
failed to properly consider Appellant’s mental health as “a matter in mitigation
and extenuation to lessen the appropriate punishment.” Though Appellant re-
lies on mitigation evidence as to his mental health, including testimony from
his mother that when she visited him just before the misconduct occurred Ap-
pellant “wasn’t the same young man that left [her] house,” the bulk of the evi-
dence to which Appellant referred at trial regards his mental health evaluation
and treatment in the months after the misconduct at issue in the case.3
    Appellant offers minimal explanation or evidence for his assertion that the
military judge “failed to consider” Appellant’s mental health struggles when
considering sentence, leaving us to presume Appellant is implicitly arguing
that had the military judge considered the mental health issues, the sentence
would have been different. Appellant’s only concrete offering on this point is a
brief footnote objecting that the military judge ruled he would consider only
some of Defense Exhibit C—a one-page psychological assessment by Mr. JH—
during sentencing. Appellant asserts this was an error, but claims he did not
raise it “as a separate [a]ssignment of [e]rror because this [c]ourt may consider
the entire record and should consider the entirety of Defense Exhibit C.” Ap-
pellant thus appears to be asking us to consider a portion of Defense Exhibit C
that the military judge chose not to admit due to reliability concerns.
    Defense Exhibit C is an email from Mr. JH, the Director of Outpatient Ser-
vices at Red River Hospital, to trial defense counsel summarizing some of the
clinical observations and treatment plans in effect for Appellant at the time.
In contrast with Defense Exhibit B, which was the report of a formal psycho-
logical evaluation conducted by a psychologist, and which the military judge
admitted in toto, Defense Exhibit C appears to be a summary created by an

3 Appellant expressly states he is not challenging the results of a sanity board convened

under R.C.M. 706 that found him competent to stand trial.

                                             5
                United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

administrator rather than a healthcare provider. The military judge declined
to admit or consider clinical information contained in Defense Exhibit C based
on reliability concerns and an insufficient foundation regarding what Defense
Exhibit C purported to be and the knowledge and expertise, if any, of its
sender. We have not been asked to consider whether Defense Exhibit C was
properly not admitted and decline to find the unadmitted and unconsidered
portions of Defense Exhibit C demonstrate Appellant’s sentence is inappropri-
ately severe.
    The evidence admitted at trial indicates Appellant suffered from significant
mental health difficulties after the misconduct at issue in this case was de-
tected by authorities. It is unsurprising that the discovery by law enforcement
and his military unit of Appellant’s offenses against a young child would leave
Appellant distraught, and perhaps severely so. What Appellant does not
demonstrate is how those difficulties constituted extenuation or mitigation of
the offenses sufficient to show his sentence is inappropriately severe. Moreo-
ver, at trial Appellant introduced evidence focusing his extenuation and miti-
gation case on his mental health challenges; we are confident the military
judge considered the mental health challenges in arriving at the sentence.
    Appellant also contends that a dishonorable discharge is inappropriately
severe because it strips him of important benefits crucial to his rehabilitation.
This contention is not supported by any substantive detail or explanation in
the record. Appellant notes he received extensive mental health services in the
months after his misconduct. He further observes that he underwent personal
growth between the start of the investigation and sentencing and “[t]hat same
growth should continue as he is released from confinement.” But Appellant
does not explain how or why the opportunity for such growth is prevented by a
dishonorable discharge, instead proclaiming only that “the dishonorable dis-
charge makes [growth] continuity unlikely” and “the military will ultimately
not assist in [Appellant’s] efforts to maintain a positive trajectory.” Presuma-
bly, Appellant is asserting he will be unable to receive military healthcare fol-
lowing execution of his punitive discharge. But this would be generally true
whether Appellant’s punitive discharge was a bad-conduct discharge or dis-
honorable discharge. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 1074 (military medical care author-
ized for “members of the uniformed service” includes active duty, certain re-
serve component members, and certain members entitled to retired pay); 38
U.S.C. § 5303 (barring all benefits administered by the Department of Veter-
ans Affairs for persons discharged as part of the sentence of a general court-
martial). Thus, Appellant implicitly requests we disapprove any punitive dis-
charge in order to preserve Appellant’s access to military healthcare benefits,
despite the fact that in his plea agreement he agreed that a punitive discharge
must be adjudged. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude disap-
proving a punitive discharge for the purpose of preserving military healthcare

                                         6
                  United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

benefits would amount to an act of clemency, which we may not grant. Nerad,
69 M.J. at 146.
    After Appellant’s case was returned to us following our remand, Appellant
added a third basis for claiming his sentence is inappropriately severe: the re-
quirement that he register as a sex offender.4 Specifically, Appellant asserts
that under applicable state law, he must register as a sex offender for 25 years
and during this time is not permitted to live within 1,000 feet of a church,
school, daycare, or youth center. Appellant states that due to sex offender reg-
istration, a sense of “constant surveillance” follows him everywhere, leaving
him feeling defeated, and that sex offender status imposes a profound stigma
on him. Appellant also asserts that, “when paired with the decades-long
[stigma] of sex offender registration, the dishonorable discharge becomes all
the more inappropriate.”
    We consider the fact contained in the record that Appellant is a registered
sex offender, with various attendant restrictions and requirements, but we at-
tribute little weight to that fact in this case. White, unpub. op. at *46. Though
“[s]ex offender registration is a collateral consequence of the conviction alone,
not the sentence,” Talkington, 73 M.J. at 213, we recognize that post-trial
events may warrant sentence relief when a legal deficiency or error exacer-
bates an otherwise appropriate sentence. White, unpub. op. at *47 (citing Gay,
75 M.J. at 269). But Appellant identifies no such error related to sex offender
registration in this case; he simply asserts that sex offender registration ren-
ders the adjudged sentence inappropriately severe. As we noted in White, “[t]o
the extent Appellant argues the [sex offender] registration requirements are
onerous or unjust, a more effective avenue for recourse runs through his
elected representatives and courts with jurisdiction over those requirements.”
Unpub. op. at *47.
    Appellant seeks to have this court disapprove a dishonorable discharge as
being inappropriately severe despite the fact less than six months after arriv-
ing at his first duty station he engaged in serious criminal misconduct, sexually
victimizing an 8-year-old girl. Though Appellant was sentenced to the most
severe form of discharge available for an enlisted service member at court-

4 Our review under Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ, is generally confined to matters found in

the “entire record” of trial. United States v. Jessie, 79 M.J. 437, 444–45 (C.A.A.F. 2020).
Originally, the record of trial referred to sex offender registration only when the mili-
tary judge confirmed with trial defense counsel that Appellant had been advised of “sex
offender reporting and registration requirements resulting from a finding of guilty” of
the child pornography specification. When, after our remand, the convening authority
provided Appellant the required opportunity to respond to matters submitted by the
victim, Appellant included specific details of sex offender registration requirements
applicable to him. We conclude the matter is now properly part of the “entire record.”

                                              7
                United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

martial, Appellant’s sentence to 15 months of confinement was far below the
maximum confinement available for the offenses of which he was convicted.
Appellant successfully negotiated a plea agreement with the convening author-
ity that capped his confinement exposure to less than three percent of the max-
imum, and the adjudged sentence was to a term of confinement below even the
plea agreement cap. During his unsworn statement to the military judge, Ap-
pellant specifically requested lower confinement and did not comment at all on
the punitive discharge. Similarly, during sentencing argument, trial defense
counsel focused solely on the confinement aspect of the sentence, not even men-
tioning discharge characterization. Having focused his efforts before and dur-
ing trial on reducing his sentence to confinement, Appellant now asks this
court to reduce a different aspect of his sentence, arguing the dishonorable dis-
charge is inappropriately severe. Appellant’s argument is belied by his own
words to the military judge during his unsworn statement: “I know I deserve a
severe punishment . . . .”
    R.C.M. 1003(a)(8)(B) reserves a dishonorable discharge for “serious of-
fenses.” Appellant sexually abused a child through indecent language, includ-
ing soliciting her to provide a picture of her naked chest, through sending an
8-year-old child a photograph of his erect penis, and through asking for, receiv-
ing, and viewing video child pornography created by his 8-year-old victim. Dur-
ing sentencing argument, trial defense counsel twice used the language of
R.C.M. 1003(a)(8)(B), characterizing Appellant’s actions as “a serious offense.”
We agree. Having reviewed the entire record, including all the matters sub-
mitted by Appellant in extenuation and mitigation, we find that Appellant’s
adjudged sentence was not inappropriately severe.
B. Whether Trial Counsel’s Sentencing Arguments Were Improper
   1. Additional Background
   Appellant claims trial counsel’s sentencing argument was improper in two
ways: (1) by invoking victim impact when no evidence of victim impact was
admitted; and (2) by arguing Appellant lacked remorse without the requisite
foundation.
    Regarding victim impact, Appellant observes JA did not testify during the
presentencing hearing and the Government did not admit evidence regarding
any impact Appellant’s offenses had on JA. Appellant draws the court’s atten-
tion to two statements made by trial counsel during her sentencing argument.
Trial counsel began her sentencing argument by asserting:
       There is a very real victim in this case, JA, an 8-year-old girl,
       with her own family and her own community and her own aspi-
       rations and her own future. Those things aren’t unique to [Ap-
       pellant], and her life has been fundamentally altered by this

                                         8
                 United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

       [A]irman’s actions. She’s had to pay a certain price for those ac-
       tions.
Trial counsel later commented on purported victim impact when remarking on
Appellant’s apology and lack of remorse:
       And going back to this personal statement of [Appellant], there
       is an apology to JA, and it’s a one-line sentence. There is nothing
       in here that indicates he truly understands the impact that his
       actions have had on her. And if he doesn’t understand that,
       there’s nothing to say that he’s been rehabilitated or that he
       doesn’t deserve this harsh punishment, this dishonorable dis-
       charge, because [Appellant] was past a bad-conduct discharge
       the very first time he sent a lewd message to this girl, knowing
       she was 8 years old, and he was well past it every single act of
       misconduct after that.
    In sentencing argument, trial defense counsel argued JA was already a bro-
ken person, arguing that she was a victim before Appellant’s offenses. When
trial counsel objected that the argument included facts not in evidence, trial
defense counsel responded that it was a “reasonable inference based on human
nature . . . common sense . . . and knowledge of . . . the ways of the world.” Trial
counsel’s objection was overruled and trial defense counsel continued to argue
that JA “woke up that morning already broken” and that there was “no evi-
dence whatsoever of any impact [of Appellant’s crimes] in this case.”
    On appeal, Appellant now objects—when his trial defense counsel did not—
to trial counsel’s reference to Appellant’s brief apology to JA in Appellant’s
written unsworn statement: “[T]here is an apology to JA, and it’s a one-line
sentence. There is nothing in here that indicates he truly understands the im-
pact that his actions have had on her.”
   2. Law
    We review claims of improper argument de novo. United States v. Voorhees,
79 M.J. 5, 9 (C.A.A.F. 2019) (citation omitted). When there is no objection dur-
ing argument, we review for plain error. Id. (citation omitted). “The burden of
proof under plain error review is on the appellant,” who must show: “(1) that
there is error; (2) the error is clear or obvious; and (3) the error results in ma-
terial prejudice to a substantial right of the accused.” Id. (quoting United States
v. Andrews, 77 M.J. 393, 398, 401 (C.A.A.F. 2018)).
    Improper argument “occurs when trial counsel oversteps the bounds of that
propriety and fairness which should characterize the conduct of such an officer
in the prosecution of a criminal offense.” United States v. Sewell, 76 M.J. 14,
21 n.3 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Im-
proper argument will yield relief only if the misconduct “actually impacted on

                                           9
                United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

a substantial right of an accused (i.e., resulted in prejudice).” United States v.
Fletcher, 62 M.J. 175, 178 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (quoting United States v. Meek, 44
M.J. 1, 5 (C.A.A.F. 1996)).
    Our superior court “has consistently cautioned counsel to ‘limit’ arguments
on findings or sentencing ‘to evidence in the record and to such fair inferences
as may be drawn therefrom.’” United States v. White, 36 M.J. 306, 308 (C.M.A.
1993) (quoting United States v. Nelson, 1 M.J. 235, 239–40 (C.M.A. 1975)). “As
a zealous advocate for the [G]overnment, trial counsel may ‘argue the evidence
of record, as well as all reasonable inferences fairly derived from such evi-
dence.’” United States v. Halpin, 71 M.J. 477, 479 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (quoting
United States v. Baer, 53 M.J. 235, 237 (C.A.A.F. 2000)). In determining
whether an argument is improper, the court is to view it in its entire context.
Baer, 53 M.J. at 239.
    Improper argument does not automatically lead to relief on appeal.
Fletcher, 62 M.J. at 178. In Fletcher our superior court identified three factors
to consider when determining whether the alleged prosecutorial misconduct
prejudiced an appellant’s substantial rights by impacting the integrity of his
trial: “(1) the severity of the misconduct, (2) the measures adopted to cure the
misconduct, and (3) the weight of the evidence supporting the conviction.” Id.
at 184. When applying Fletcher to improper sentencing argument, this court
considers whether “trial counsel’s comments, taken as a whole, were so dam-
aging that we cannot be confident that the appellant was sentenced on the
basis of the evidence alone.” Halpin, 71 M.J. at 480 (citations, alterations, and
internal quotation marks omitted).
    “[T]he lack of a defense objection is ‘some measure of the minimal impact
of a prosecutor’s improper comment.’” United States v. Gilley, 56 M.J. 113, 123
(C.A.A.F. 2001) (quoting United States v. Carpenter, 51 M.J. 393, 396 (C.A.A.F.
1999)).
   Appellant “faces a particularly high hurdle” to show plain error when the
military judge is the sentencing authority. See United States v. Robbins, 52
M.J. 455, 457 (C.A.A.F. 2000). “Military judges are presumed to know the law
and to follow it absent clear evidence to the contrary.” United States v. Erick-
son, 65 M.J. 221, 225 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (citing United States v. Mason, 45 M.J.
483, 484 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (per curiam)). “As part of this presumption we further
presume that the military judge is able to distinguish between proper and im-
proper sentencing arguments.” Id. The failure of the military judge to note im-
proper argument on the record does not rebut the presumption that the mili-
tary judge distinguished between proper and improper argument; an appellant
must provide evidence to rebut the presumption. Id.

                                         10
                 United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

    Trial counsel may comment on an accused’s failure to express remorse, pro-
vided a proper foundation is laid. United States v. Paxton, 64 M.J 484, 487
(C.A.A.F. 2007). A proper foundation is laid for trial counsel to comment on an
appellant’s failure to show remorse when an accused has “made an unsworn
statement and has either expressed no remorse or his expression of remorse
can be arguably construed as being shallow, artificial, or contrived.” United
States v. Edwards, 35 M.J. 351, 355 (C.M.A. 1992) (citing United States v. Gib-
son, 30 M.J. 1138, 1139 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990)) (additional citation omitted).
   3. Analysis
   Trial defense counsel did not object to either line of argument Appellant
now asserts was impermissible. Accordingly, we review for plain error. Voor-
hees, 79 M.J. at 9. We consider each alleged impermissible argument in turn.
       a. Trial counsel’s comments regarding victim
    Trial counsel arguably commented on the impact of Appellant’s offenses on
the victim twice during her sentencing argument. At the beginning of her ar-
gument trial counsel asserted JA’s “life ha[d] been fundamentally altered” by
Appellant’s actions and JA “had to pay a certain price for those actions.” Later
in her argument, trial counsel more subtly commented on the victim when con-
tending that Appellant had low rehabilitative potential because his unsworn
statement contained “nothing . . . that indicates he truly understands the im-
pact that his actions have had on her,” thus implying Appellant’s actions, in
fact, had an impact on JA.
    We need not decide whether trial counsel’s comments constituted imper-
missible argument or constituted “reasonable inferences fairly derived from
[the] evidence.” Halpin, 71 M.J. at 479 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Even if the comments exceeded reasonable inferences, under the fac-
tors our superior court identified in Fletcher—(1) the severity of the miscon-
duct, (2) the measures adopted to cure the misconduct, and (3) the weight of
the evidence supporting the sentence—we find no prejudice in the purported
improper argument. 62 M.J. at 184.
    Regarding the severity of trial counsel’s alleged misconduct, trial counsel’s
comments on the impact on JA of Appellant’s offenses that arguably extended
beyond admitted evidence were brief, limited, and neither central to the argu-
ment nor repeated over and over. Moreover, even if the comments exceeded
reasonable inferences, the extent to which they did so was not severe. The lack
of severity of trial counsel’s comments may also be suggested by the fact that
neither trial defense counsel nor the military judge objected to the comments.
This lack of a defense objection is “some measure of the minimal impact of a
prosecutor’s improper comment.” Gilley, 56 M.J. at 123 (citation omitted). This
lack of objection also meant that no curative measures—Fletcher’s second

                                         11
                United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

factor—were taken explicitly on the record by the military judge. But we pre-
sume military judges know the law and follow it, “absent clear evidence to the
contrary.” Erickson, 65 M.J. at 225 (citation omitted). In this case there is no
evidence that trial counsel’s comments impacted the military judge’s ability to
“filter[ ] out” improper argument, Robbins, 52 M.J. at 457 (citation omitted),
and we presume the military judge’s filter fulfilled any necessary curative
measure. In applying the third Fletcher factor, we consider the weight of the
evidence supporting the sentence. For reasons discussed above in the context
of Appellant’s claim of inappropriate sentence severity, we find the weight of
the evidence clearly supports the adjudged and entered sentence. Ultimately,
trial counsel’s comments on the victim give us no reason to believe that Appel-
lant was not “sentenced on the basis of the evidence alone.” Halpin, 71 M.J. at
480 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Appellant has “failed to
establish that the weight of the evidence did not clearly support the adjudged
and approved sentence.” Id. We find Appellant has failed to meet his burden of
establishing prejudice.
       b. Trial counsel’s comments on Appellant’s lack of remorse
    Trial counsel referenced Appellant’s brief apology to JA in Appellant’s writ-
ten unsworn statement while arguing that because Appellant had not demon-
strated an understanding of how his actions had impacted JA, Appellant had
no rehabilitative potential. Appellant contends this constituted arguing lack of
remorse without foundation. It is not entirely clear whether trial counsel’s ar-
gument was a comment on Appellant’s lack of remorse or a comment on Appel-
lant’s lack of understanding or recognition of how JA may have been impacted
by his actions. Arguing that an accused has not recognized the impact of their
actions on a victim is not the same as arguing an accused’s apology is insincere.
In fact, trial counsel did not make a generalized claim that Appellant lacked
remorse. Moreover, trial counsel’s statement that Appellant’s brief apology to
JA contained no indication that he understood the impact of his actions on JA
was arguably correct, limited, and avoided the error of arguing facts not in
evidence.
    To the extent we consider trial counsel’s comment on Appellant’s apology
to JA being a “one-line sentence” as implicit argument that Appellant lacked
sufficient remorse, the requisite foundation to permit such argument is that
an appellant has “made an unsworn statement and has either expressed no
remorse or his expression of remorse can be arguably construed as being shal-
low, artificial, or contrived.” Edwards, 35 M.J. at 355 (citation omitted). Appel-
lant mentioned JA in just two of the nearly 100 sentences in his written un-
sworn statement. Based on the context, this could be construed as a shallow
expression of remorse. Id. A sufficient foundation was laid to permit trial

                                         12
                United States v. Baker, No. ACM 40091 (f rev)

counsel’s brief comment on it in this case. Based on the facts of this case, trial
counsel’s limited comment did not constitute error.
    Moreover, even if trial counsel’s brief comment was error, Appellant has
failed to demonstrate prejudice. As with trial counsel’s comments on purported
victim impact discussed above, Appellant fails to establish prejudice under the
Fletcher factors. The purported misconduct was not severe, no curative
measures other than the military judge’s presumed ability to filter out im-
proper argument was required, and the weight of the evidence supports the
sentence. Taken as a whole, we find trial counsel’s comments were not so dam-
aging that we cannot be confident that Appellant was sentenced based on the
evidence alone. Halpin, 71 M.J. at 480. We find Appellant has failed to meet
his burden of establishing plain error and prejudice therefrom.

                               III. CONCLUSION
    The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Ar-
ticles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the find-
ings and the sentence are AFFIRMED.

                     FOR THE COURT

                     CAROL K. JOYCE
                     Clerk of the Court

                                          13