Court Opinion

ID: 9836930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:33.80418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.367853
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(dissenting):
I have written previously in this case and adhere to those views. See Villareal v. Ramsay, 43 MJ 476 (1996) (Sullivan, J., dissenting); see generally United States v. Hagen, 25 MJ 78, 87-88 (CMA 1987) (Sullivan, J., concurring). I must add a few additional comments in light of the majority opinion in this case.
Article 37(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 837(a), states: “No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence ... the action of any convening ... authority with respect to his judicial acts.” There is no “old friend and shipmate” exception to this rule, nor an exception for the convening authority who first initiates the discussion with the superior concerning the ease. I agree with Judge Effron that United States v. Gerlich, 45 MJ 309 (1996), controls. As I stated before: “From the state of the record before us, it appears that a higher headquarters may have improperly influenced a convening authority to withdraw from a [pretrial agreement].” 43 MJ at 477.
As for prejudice, at the very least, appellant is liable for 2% more years of confinement. Transferring this case to a new convening authority, after appellant has unlawfully been denied the benefit of his bargain, does not erase this stark reality. Moreover, the majority’s trumpeting of the command’s right to enter plea bargains as somehow justifying this additional punishment is unconvincing. This right is not absolute, and it must give way to the overarching concerns of due process of law. See Art. 37.
In sum, the rule of law, not clandestine command policy, controls our military justice system. U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 14; Art. 37; see also Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163, 181, 114 S.Ct. 752, 127 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994) (that court has demonstrated its vigilance in checking any attempts to exert improper influence over military judges). The facts of this case, in my view, suggest the contrary. Accordingly, I dissent.