Court Opinion

ID: 9910947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 21:06:04.580643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:19.899094
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                                           Before
                               FLEMING, HAYES, and PARKER
                                  Appellate Military Judges

                              UNITED STATES, Appellee
                                          v.
                            Sergeant LANCE E. COLBERT
                            United States Army, Appellant

                                     ARMY 20200259

                         Headquarters, Fort Bliss (trial)
 Headquarters, U.S. Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth (DuBay Hearing)
        James P. Arguelles and Michael S. Devine, Military Judges (trial)
               Steven C. Henricks, Military Judge (DuBay Hearing)
             Colonel Andrew M. McKee, Staff Judge Advocate (trial)
      Colonel Robert L. Manley III, Staff Judge Advocate (DuBay Hearing)

For Appellant: Colonel Michael C. Friess, JA; Jonathan Potter, Esquire; Major
Rachel P. Gordienko, JA; Captain Julia M. Farinas, JA (on brief); Colonel Michael
C. Friess, JA; Jonathan Potter, Esquire; Captain Lauren M. Teel, JA; Captain Julia
M. Farinas, JA; (on reply brief and first supplemental brief); Colonel Michael C.
Friess, JA; Major Rachel P. Gordienko, JA; Captain Ian P. Smith, JA; Jonathan
Potter, Esquire (second supplemental brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Christopher B. Burgess, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Craig J.
Schapira JA; Major Pamela L. Jones, JA; Captain Thomas J. Darmofal, JA (on brief
and first supplemental brief); Colonel Christopher B. Burgess, JA; Major Pamela L.
Jones, JA (on response to appellant's second supplemental brief).

                                     13 December 2023

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

  This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent.

FLEMING, Senior Judge:

      Appellant asserts, both through counsel and pursuant to United States v.
Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), multiple errors meriting discussion; one of
COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

which merits relief. 1 The alleged errors meriting discussion involve two general
areas: (1) whether the government failed to disclose or preserve evidence; and (2)
whether appellant's trial defense counsel were ineffective.

       As to the government's alleged failure to disclose or preserve evidence, we
find the evidence was not favorable and material to the defense. The evidence was,
in the light most favorable to the defense, only "potentially useful," and appellant
did not file a specific discovery request. After our review of the record, even if the
government was required to disclose the evidence in response to a generic defense
discovery request, a reasonable probability of a different result at trial does not
exist.

      Appellant alleges his trial defense counsel were ineffective, in multiple ways,
during both the findings and pre-sentencing phases of his case. We determine
appellant's counsel were not ineffective during the findings phase and, even
assuming ineffectiveness at that stage, appellant was not prejudiced. We affirm
appellant's conviction, consistent with his plea, to intentional (unpremeditated)
murder.

      We determine, however, appellant's defense counsel were ineffective in the
pre-sentencing phase and appellant was prejudiced. We set aside appellant's
sentence and authorize a sentence rehearing in our decretal paragraph. 2

                                   BACKGROUND

       A military judge convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of one
specification of intentional (unpremeditated) murder in violation of Article 118(2),
Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. §918. 3 The military judge

1
  We have given full and fair consideration to the remaining matters personally
raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.
1982) and, other than the matters related to the ineffective assistance of his trial
defense counsel, we determine they merit neither discussion nor relief.
2
  Our decision setting aside appellant's sentence moots his multiple claims of error
allegedly occurring during his pre-sentencing case. Our decision, however, does not
set aside his finding of guilty to intentional murder or warrant the nullification of
his plea agreement negotiated with the government.
3
  Appellant pleaded not guilty to numerous offenses, including premediated murder,
pursuant to plea agreement terms requiring the government to offer no evidence on
those offenses and for the military judge to enter a finding of not guilty to those
numerous offenses.

                                            2
 COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

 sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for life without the
 eligibility for parole (L WOP) , total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
 reduction to the grade of E-1. 4 The convening authority approved the findings of
 guilty and only so much of the sentence including a dishonorable discharge,
 confinement for L WOP, and reduction to the grade of E-1.

        Appellant murdered his wife with a thirteen-inch tactical fixed blade knife.
 This is not disputed. Appellant lacerated his wife's liver and lungs, left visible
 blade marks on her spine, and repeatedly called her "bitch" while stabbing her
 multiple times in her chest, abdomen, shoulder, and upper back while bystanders
 watched.

        In November 2016, approximately two-and-a-half years before the murder,
 appellant married his wife, a fellow soldier. From the beginning, they experienced
 marital problems surrounding appellant's infidelities and possessiveness. In August
 of 2018, while appellant's wife was deployed overseas, she notified him that she
 wanted a divorce. Appellant's wife redeployed on 31 March 2019. Appellant
 murdered her a week later, on 6 April 2019.

         Upon her redeployment, appellant strongly advised his wife that he did not
. want a divorce. His wife did not agree. Members of the wife's unit observed the
  growing tension between her and appellant. On 5 April 2019, appellant's wife, with
  help from her friends from the unit, moved out of the marital home and into a local
  hotel room.

        On the evening of 6 Apri l 2019, appellant asked to borrow a subordinate
 soldier, Private First Class (PFC)-s minivan. Appellant then drove his own

 4
   As to appellant's plea agreement and the maximum amount of confinement he
 faced based on his plea of guilty to intentional murder, we find the military judge
 thoroughly discussed and confirmed appellant's understanding that a mandatory
 minimum did not exist regarding the offense of intentional murder but a sentence of
 confinement for life without the eligibility of parole was authorized. This scenario
 allowed the parties to negotiate a plea agreement term authorizing the military judge
 to adjudge confinement between a minimum of zero days to a maximum of life
 without the eligibility of parole. Further, the military judge thoroughly discussed
 and confirmed appellant's understanding that his plea of not guilty to premediated
 murder, pursuant to his plea agreement, meant he would not face a mandatory
 minimum punishment of confinement for life with the eligibility of parole. The
 Dubay military judge determined appellant's trial defense counsel properly advised
 appellant concerning his plea agreement terms and "under the plea agreement's
 terms that the military judge could [possibly] sentence the appellant to confinement
 for life without the possibility of parole."

                                           3
COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

vehicle to a sporting goods store to purchase the previously discussed thirteen-inch
tactical fixed blade knife and a pair of compact binoculars. Appellant, with his
newly acquired purchases, drove PFC - s minivan to the parking lot of his wife's
hotel and waited within observation distance of her parked vehicle.

       In the early evening hours, appellant's wife departed her hotel room, entered
the parking lot, and left in her vehicle to attend a unit redeployment party at a fellow
soldier's on-post house. Appellant followed her to the house in PFC - s minivan
and parked outside. Appellant texted a friend that appellant was using PFC-s
minivan to follow his wife "so she won't see me." While parked outside the unit
house party, appellant utilized his new binoculars to spy on the house and his wife
from a distance. At some point during the party, appellant 's wife became aware of
appellant's actions. She texted a friend that her husband was "stalking" her.

       At 2015, appellant left his surveillance of his wife to drive to a nearby 7-
Eleven to purchase beer and a cigarillo. At some point, he returned to the vicinity of
the party and continued to spy on his wife from afar. At approximately 2210, while
driving PFC- s minivan past the house party, appellant hit another car parked on
the street. Appellant quickly drove out of si ght, parked, departed the minivan, and
began to run.

       Within minutes of departi~he minivan, appellant texted PFC - that 'Tm
sorry man." In response to PFC - inquiring via a return text what appellant meant,
appellant next texted, "I wrack and I' m about to kill my wife." After appellant's
disturbing response, PFC • immediately called appellant. Appellant answered the
phone. Appellant repeated to PFC -that appellant was going to kill his wife and
asserted he had a knife.

       About this time, appellant's wife and a fellow unit soldier, Sergeant (SGT)
•   were departing the unit house party. Captain (CPT). who was standing
outside the house attempting to find the driver of the minivan after the hit and run
accident, observed appellant approaching the house out of breath. Appellant told
CPT ■ that appellant was out of breath because he had been out for a jog. Captain
.was suspicious of this response because appellant was wearing unlaced Chuck
Taylor shoes. Appellant then started running toward his wife and SGT- who were
attempting to enter a parked vehicle. Captain. . .started running behind appellant in
close pursuit. Appellant, however, was able to fling open the passenger door his
wife was attempting to enter. Appellant began stabbing his wife with his knife in a
punching motion.

       Appellant repeatedly stabbed his wife ten times and cut her nine times, only
stopping when CPT -was able to pull appellant off his wife. After being pulled
off his wife and subdued, appellant told CPT-that appellant had stabbed his wife,
she had caught him cheating, and she wanted a divorce.

                                           4
    COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

       Sergeant .immediately drove appellant's wife to the emergency room.
Upon her arrival at the hospital, appellant ' s wife was found slumped on the
passenger side floorboard in the fetal position. The floor mat of the vehicle was
saturated in her blood, and she had no pulse. Hospital personnel worked desperately
to save her life, but she was pronounced dead from her severe injuries just under one
hour after her arrival.

       Back at the unit house party, military police and paramedics arrived.
Responding paramedics noted appellant did not seem incoherent or intoxicated but
rather appeared hostile and intent on harming himself. Appellant told one paramedic
that his wife found appellant cheating and she made him mad two days prior.
Appellant refused to take responsibility for his actions, however, stating to military
police he did not believe he had hurt his wife.

       Appellant was escorted to the hospital. His intake records listed depression,
suicidal thoughts, homicidal thoughts, substance abuse, and violent behavior as his
chief complaints. Appellant told an emergency room doctor, Dr. •, that after
drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana with a person named "Cowboy," whom
appellant met at the nearby 7-Eleven, appellant became enraged seeing another
soldier speaking to his wife so "he jumped from the vehicle" and stabbed her.

       While at the hospital, appellant underwent two types of blood draw. 5 One
blood draw was ordered by appellant's company commander for the singular purpose
of determining appellant's blood alcohol content. The other blood draw was ordered
by Dr.. to determine appellant's blood alcohol or drug content and to obtain other
routine medical information. The blood tests ordered by Dr. -were negative not
only for marijuana, which appellant alleges he used, but also a variety of other drugs
such as barbiturates, cocaine, amphetamines, and opiates.

       After appellant's court-martial, Dr. -filed an affidavit with this court
asserting his opinion, captured in his medical treatment and diagnosis notes taken
contemporaneously with appellant's hospital visit, that appellant was displaying
bizarre behavior. Dr. • asserted appellant "was disoriented, experiencing visual
and auditory hallucination, was not oriented to date and time, and had an altered
thought process, among other symptoms." Appellant also filed a post-trial affidavit

5
  During the appellate process, several questions were raised regarding who might
have ordered a blood draw from appellant, how many blood draws occurred, the
outcome of any testing, and if any of appellant's blood remained available for
testing. Based on these uncertainties, we ordered a hearing pursuant to United
States v. Dubay, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967) to clarify not only the
above questions but also to determine the details of the discovery process between
the parties regarding appellant's blood draws .

                                          5
COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

with this court stating he smoked "what I thought was marijuana" and described
"feeling incredibly paranoid and crazy afterward."

       Dr. • believed appellant's behavior was consistent with the ingestion of a
synthetic substance which the standard hospital blood screening test would not have
revealed. Dr. • alleged he had handwritten an order requesting appellant's blood
be sent to a differe~pecialized laboratory to test for synthetic substances and
other poisons. Dr. -stated he was never contacted by appellant's trial defense
counsel.

       As the facts surrounding appellant's two blood draws are closely related to his
allegations regarding not only the government's alleged failure to disclose or
preserve evidence but also the ineffectiveness of his trial defense counsel, we first
discuss the law as to each alleged error and then address our analysis regarding the
legal issues related to any blood drawn from appellant.

                              LAW AND DISCUSSION

         Government's Discovery and Preservation of Evidence Obligations

       Article 46, UCMJ mandates "trial counsel, the defense counsel, and the court-
martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in
accordance with such regulations as the President may proscribe." UCMJ art. 46(a).
Along these lines, Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 703(a) mandates the prosecution
and the defense "shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and evidence," and
R.C.M. 7031(1) affirms "[e]ach party is entitled to the production of evidence which
is relevant and necessary."

        As to the government's sua sponte duty to disclose evidence to the defense,
the government commits a discovery violation in violation of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it "withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and
material to the defendant's guilt or punishment." United States v. Behenna , 71 M.J.
228 , 237-38 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (citing Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 75 (2012)); see also
R.C.M. 701(a)(6). Favorable evidence is "exculpatory, substantive evidence or
evidence capable of impeaching the government's case. Id. at 238 (internal citations
omitted). "Evidence is material when 'there is a reasonable probability that, had the
evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different."'
Id. (citing Smith, 565 U.S. at 75). Once a Brady vio lation is established, there is no
need to test for harmlessness. Id. (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435-36
(1995)) .

      The government's duty to disclose evidence pursuant to a defen se discovery
request depends on whether the request was generic or specific. See United Sta tes v.
Coleman, 72 M.J. 184, 187 (C.A.A.F. 2013). A defense request is specific if it:

                                           6
COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

             First, ... on its face or by clear implication, identif[ies]
             the specific file, document or evidence in question.
             Second, unless the request concerns evidence in the
             possession of the trial counsel, the request must
             reasonably identify the location of the evidence or its
             custodian. Third, the specific request should include a
             statement of the expected materiality of the evidence to
             preparation of the defense's case unless the relevance is
             plain.

United States v. Ellis, 77 M.J. 671,681 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2018). If the
government fails to disclose discoverable evidence in response to a specific defense
request, appellant is entitled to relief unless the government can show the
nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Claxton, 76
M.J. 356, 359 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (citing United States v. Roberts, 59 M.J. 323, 327
(C.A.A.F. 2004)). In cases in which the defense made no or only a generic request
for discovery, the standard of review is whether there is a reasonable probability that
there would have been a different result at trial had the evidence been disclosed.
Coleman, 72 M.J. at 186 (citing Smith, 565 U.S. at 75).

        As to preserving evidence, appellant must show the evidence possessed an
exculpatory value that was or should have been apparent to the Government before it
was lost or destroyed. See California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984);
United States v. Simmermacher, 74 M.J. 196, 198 (C.A.A.F. 2015). See also Arizona
v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988) (holding the government's failure to preserve
"potentially useful evidence" does not constitute a denial of due process absent bad
faith).

                           Defense Counsel's Performance

        We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. United States
v. Furth, 81 M.J. 114, 117 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (citing United States v. Carter, 79 M.J.
4 78, 480 (C.A.A.F. 2020)). Military courts evaluate ineffective assistance claims
using the Supreme Court's framework from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
( 1984 ). Id. "Under Strickland, an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that
(a) defense counsel's performance was deficient, and (b) this deficient performance
was prejudicial." Id. (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687).

       In evaluating performance, courts "must indulge a strong presumption that
counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance."
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. This presumption can be rebutted by "showing specific
errors [made by defense counsel] that were unreasonable under prevailing
professional norms." United States v. McConnell, 55 M.J. 479, 482 (C.A.A.F. 2001)
(citing United States v. Scott, 24 M.J. 186, 188 (C.M.A. 1987)). In defining what

                                           7
 COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

  Court has stated a "defendant must show that counsels' representation fell below an
  objective standard of reasonableness." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. Further, a court
• must "judge the reasonableness of counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of the
  particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct." Id. at 690.

       Even where counsel has committed an unreasonable error, it "does not
warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no
effect on the judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. Appellant must
"affirmatively prove prejudice." Id. at 693. This means appellant must show that
"there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694. "The
likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable."
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011) (emphasis added). This requires
consideration of "the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury." Strickland,
466 U.S. at 695. Appellant must show "counsel made errors so serious that counsel
was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth
Amendment." Id. at 687.

                               Appellant's Blood Draws

      First, we discuss the Dubay military judge's findings regarding the blood
draw ordered by Dr. -      Those samples were never sent to a different laboratory for
specialized testing. 6 The hospital destroyed any blood samples taken from appellant
within seven to fourteen days after the laboratory's receipt or testing of his blood;
approximately mid-to-late Apri l 2019. The trial counsel provided appellant's
defense counsel with the hospital' s test results, which were negative not only for
appellant's alleged marijuana use but for a variety of other drugs. Although the
Dubay military judge could not determine the exact timeframe the government trial

6
   The Dubay military judge's ruling states "Dr. - testified he had drawn between
approximately ten to twenty vials of blood from the appellant, he closely interacted
with and oversaw the nurse who drew the numerous vials of blood, and [he] ensured
the vials and specialized written orders were all delivered to the ... laboratory." The
nurse's testimony contradicted (a gross understatement) Dr. - o n all his points.
The nurse specially testified "she drew only a few vials of blood from .!£Pellant, Dr .
• did not order any specialized testing of the appellant's blood, Dr. •did not
closely interact with her when she drew blood from the appellant, and Dr. •did
not take any special steps to ensure delivery of the appellant's blood to the ...
laboratory." Despite this disparate witness testimony, the military judge determined,
as do we, the important derived fact for purposes of analyzing appellant's
allegations was a determination that specialized testing of appellant's blood
allegedly ordered by Dr. • did not occur.

                                           8
COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

counsel notified the defense that appellant's blood samples were destroyed, the
military judge determined it occurred during the discovery phase and prior to trial.

       As to the commander's blood draw, appellant's blood sample was sent to the
Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES) at Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware. Appellant's blood was analyzed for alcohol content with a result of .069.
No other test was performed. The AFMES maintained appellant's blood sample for
two years, per their standard operating procedure, and his sample was destroyed
mid-April 2021 (almost a year after appellant 's court-martial). The Dubay military
judge found government trial counsel "did not specifically know and never realized .
. . appellant had a [AFMES] blood sample drawn" during the discovery phase
through the adjournment of appellant's court-martial and only became aware of the
test when the trial counsel was "contacted/interviewed" for the Dubay hearing.

       The trial counsel, however, "did provide to the defense a single document at
least twice obliquely referencing the [AFMES sample] and/or testing" prior to
appellant's court-martial. This reference, an entry contained in a United States
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Agent Investigative Report (AIR),
stated "about 0256, 7 Apr 19, SA [Ill coordinated with 2LT [•J .. . who provided a
memorandum signed by CPT [ . , appellant's commander] ... requesting a Legal
Blood Alcohol test ... for [appellant].

       Having resolved several factual questions at the Dubay hearing regarding
appellant 's blood draws, we must now determine whether the government was
required, sua sponte, to either provide further discovery or preserve the evidence for
the defense or if the defense specifically requested discovery regarding appellant's
blood draw maintained at AFMES. The answer to both questions is no.

       On its face, the AFMES blood draw did not contain evidence favorable or
material to the defense. The AFMES' blood test only revealed appellant's blood
alcohol level and nothing further. Failure to preserve "potentially useful evidence"
does not violate appellant's due process rights absent the government's bad faith.
Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58. The Dubay military judge determined the trial counsel
was unaware of the AFMES blood alcohol test until notified of the Dubay hearing
and the CID AIR referencing the blood draw was provided to the defense counsel;
the evidence does not establish bad faith by the government. Additionally, we
reviewed the defense discovery request and conclude it only contained a generic
request for laboratory reports. The defense discovery request did not specify the
AFMES blood draw, its location, or its materiality.

       As to whether defense counsel were ineffective regarding their failure to
interview Dr. - o r file a specific discovery request, we note counsel were aware of
Dr. •s opinion, annotated in appellant's medical records, that appellent may have

                                          9
    COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

 ingested bath salts or flakka 7. Defense counsel were also aware appellant's hosp ital
 toxicology screening ordere<l by Dr. -was negative for the use of any drugs,
 including marijuana, and appellant's hospital blood samples had been destroyed
 approximately two weeks after the murder.

        Clearly the best practice would have been for defens e counsel to interview Dr .
• , but after our review of not only Dr. - s affidavit to this court but also his
Dubay testimony that appellant's blood was never sent to another laboratory to be
 tested for bath salts or flakka, we are not certain how much, if any, additional
 relevant information could have been gleaned from an in-irson discussion with Dr .
• . Even more persuasive to our analysis regarding Dr.         's importance as a
witness, the Dubay military judge determined a member of the prosecution team
telephonically interviewed Dr. -prior to appellant's trial and "Dr. •provided
little substantive information" to the prosecutor and "instead continually referred"
him to the ''emerge~ room records for any substantive information." Further,
nothing within Dr. • •s affidavit or his Dubay testimony establishes he was aware
of the separate blood draw and sample residing at AFMES such that interviewing
him would have triggered a further investigation by defense, or even the
government, as to the results of the AFMES test or, more importantly, whether
another sample of appellant's blood remained .8

       We now turn to review the record to determine if the government's failure to
respond to the defense's generic discovery request for laboratory reports or the
defense counsel's failure to specifically request such information after their receipt
of the CID AIR establishes a reasonable probability a different result at trial would
have occurred had evidence of the test been disclosed or requested. It does not.

       We first discuss appellant's wavering position regarding whether he was
intoxicated by anything other than alcohol. In an affidavit to this court, appellant
asserted, under penalty of perjury, that his trial stipulation of fact "was not true"
when he agreed he "was not intoxicated on anything other than alcohol." At trial,
however, appellant agreed "under oath" his stipulation of fact was accurate and true
and he "was under no intoxicating influence other than alcohol." Appellant read the
entire stipulation in court, agreed everything was true, asserted there was nothing in
the stipulation he did not wish to admit was true, and agreed ''under oath that the
matters contained in the stipulation [were] true and correct to best of his knowledge

7
  The Dubay Judge described "flakka" as a foreign substance which may have been
included in the marijuana appellant alleges he smoked with "Cowboy." We reiterate
that appellant's toxicology screening contained no indi cation of any marijuana use to
support the theory of "flakka" laced marijuana raising an intoxication defense.
8
As we find appellant was no t prejudiced by his counsel's fai lure to interview Dr.
■ the issue of whether their conduct was ineffective in this regard is moot.

                                           10
    COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

and belief." We need not resolve the factual discrepancy between appellant's two
varying assertions or further ponder whether his "under oath" contrasting statements
form the basis of a fa lse official statement offense, because in "a guilty-plea case ..
. [appellant] may not use his post-trial affidavit ... to contradict his guilty plea and
his sworn admission of the facts supporting them." United States v. Ginn, 4 7 M.J.
236, 248 (C.A.A.F. 1997). See United States v. Martin, ARMY 20080519, 2010
CCA LEXIS 347, (Army Ct. Crim. App 28 Sep. 2010) (mem. op.).

        Even more persuasive to our analysis, the military judge, in an abundance of
caution, provided appellant with not only the instruction for voluntary intoxication
but also discussed the possibility that appellant may have smoked another substance.
See Dep't of Army, Pam. 27-9, Legal Services: Military Judges ' Benchbook, para. 5-
12 (Bench book]. The military judge directly asked appellant, "even though you
thought you were smoking marijuana, and apparently you weren't, whatever you
were smoking, you agree that you were no t intoxicated by whatever that substance
was, is that right?" Appellant responded he understood the defense of voluntary
intoxication, that whatever he smoked had no intoxicating influence because he had
control over his mental and physical actions, and he possessed the specifi c intent to
kill his wife. 9

      The following discussion between the military judge and appellant is
revealing and pertinent:

         MJ: And whatever else you might have smoked in the car wi th Cowboy
       . a couple hours before [the murder], that wasn't influencing you in any
         way?

        ACC: No, Your Honor.

        MJ: At the time you stabbed your wife?

        ACC: No, Your Honor.

        MJ : Okay. So then, Sergeant Colbert, do you affirmatively disclaim the
        defense of voluntary intoxication?

        ACC: Yes, Your Honor.

        Beyond appellant 's own trial assertions negating any lack of mental
responsibility defense, his defense counsel, who were aware of Dr. · • s

9
 Appellant's stipulation of fact and discussion with the military judge asserting he
was coherent when he murdered his wife was also apparently corroborated by the
paramedics who arrived at the scene immediately after the murder.

                                          11
COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

observations regarding appellant's possible ingestion of a substance like flakka,
considered and rejected a case theory based on any alleged decreased mens rea
defense. Appellant's civilian trial defense counsel addressed any alleged defense of
lack of mental responsibility in his affidavit to this court noting that appellant's
alleged consumption of any illicit substances occurred after he took substantial steps
in preparation to murder his wife. Specifically, defense counsel stated:

       [t]he alleged drug use would be put up against the fact that [appellant]
       purposefully pursued his wife, having purchased the knife and
       binoculars the day before, secured a vehicle he thought his wife would
       not immediately recognize, text messaged his friend of his intent
       moments before the act, and finally lying in wait for her to appear.
       Those acts then being compounded by the apparent brutality of the
       crime all seem to cut against a drug induced impulse and looked much
       more like a considered and deliberate path.

       We agree with defense counsel's assessment of the evidence and appellant's
assertions that he possessed the mental capacity to murder his wife, despite any
alleged drug usage, and find that a reasonable probability of a different result at trial
does not exist had the AFMES blood draw been disclosed or preserved by the
government or requested by the defense.

                          Appellant's Pre-Sentencing Phase

      During the pre-sentencing phase, the defense counsel called four witnesses
and appellant gave an unsworn statement for a combined total of less than seventy
pages of witness testimony in the verbatim record. Counsel also introduced a
twenty-five page "good soldier book."

       The four defense witnesses were appellant's step-mother, biological mother,
father, and Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) -       a psychology expert. 10 Defense counsel
did not call any additional civilian or military character witnesses identified by
either appellant or his step-mother to testify regarding appellant's seven years of
service, including a combat deployment.

       The Dubay military judge found appellant's trial defense team did not even
interview four military pre-sentencing witnesses proffered as potentially favorable

10
   On appeal, appellant claims LTC -was not an adequate substitute pre-
sentencing expert witness proffered by the government in lieu of appellant's initially
requested specific expert psychologist, and LTC . s direct testimony lacked
persuasiveness which was further exploited by the government in their rebuttal case
by a more qualified government expert. Our disposition of the IAC claim renders
this issue moot.

                                           12
COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

by appellant because the civilian defense counsel "decided he wanted the defense's
sentencing case to focus on the appellant's remorse, accountability and family." The
Dubay military judge found the defense team, for this same alleged tactical reason,
did not interview any witnesses on a list of "around ten names with contact
information" provided by appellant and his step-mother identifying defense
favorable "family members and childhood/school friends."

       We find defense counsel were ineffective for failing to interview
approximately fourteen pre-sentencing witnesses proffered by appellant as
potentially favorable. See United States v. Saintaude, 56 M.J. 888 (Army Ct. Crim.
App. 2002) (holding appellant's defense team were ineffective during the sentencing
phase for failing to investigate appellant's background for potential mitigation
evidence). Defense counsel's alleged "tactical decision" to pursue a certain
strategy, while declining to interview fourteen potentially favorable pre-sentencing
witnesses, is not within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance
expected of a defense attorney. Defense counsel's failure to interview several
"family members and childhood/school friends" appears to be in direct contrast to
the stated objective of focusing the pre-sentencing case on appellant's "family."

       Having found appellant's counsel were ineffective, we must determine if
appellant was prejudiced by his counsel's failures. We must determine if "[a]
reasonable probability [exists] that the sentence would have been different but for
counsel's performance, and that probability is sufficient for us to question the
reliability of and to undermine our confidence in the sentencing proceeding."
United States v. Boone, 44 M.J. 742, 746 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1996), rev 'don
other grounds, 49 M.J. 187 (C.A.A.F. 1998). See also United States v. Weathersby,
48 M.J. 668 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1998).

       Facing a confinement range of zero days to life without the possibility of
parole, the military judge adjudged the maximum sentence. 11 Although we recognize
appellant pleaded guilty to intentionally murdering his wife, an offense likely
warranting significant confinement, we note the military judge declined the option to
sentence appellant to life with the possibility of parole. Defense counsel's asserted
tactical decision and presentencing case was not based on an investigation or
reasoned assessment of approximately fourteen alleged defense favorable witnesses
and we are not confident in the sentence that appellant received because of his
counsel's failures. A reasonable probability exists appellant might not have
received the maximum sentence of life without the eligibility parole - a sentence
forever precluding his opportunity to petition a parole review board and ensuring
imprisonment until his death - but for his counsel's ineffectiveness.

11
  As a result of the sentence he received, appellant will be confined for the
remainder of his life and will not be eligible for parole by any official. See
Benchbook para 2-5-22.

                                           13
COLBERT - ARMY 20200259

                                    CONCLUSION

     . On consideration of the entire record , the finding of guilty of Specification 2
of Charge I and of Charge I is AFFIRMED. The sentence is SET ASIDE. A
rehearing on the sentence is authorized.

      Judge HA YES and Judge PARKER concur.

                                            FOR THE COURT:

                                            JAMES W. HERRING, JR.
                                            Clerk of Court

                                          14