Court Opinion

ID: 9836908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:28.701293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.272847
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in the result):
This is an unusual ease on its facts because the unlawful pretrial punishment did not entail unlawful pretrial confinement. The military judge felt that a judicial credit was warranted for appellant’s maltreatment. Cf. United States v. Suzuki, 14 MJ 491 (CMA 1983); United States v. Larner, 1 MJ 371 (CMA 1976). The majority establishes a procedure for this situation different from that where administrative credit is ordered for lawful or unlawful pretrial confinement. Id. While I question the need for still another special rule (see RCM 305k and 1107(f)(4)(F), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.)), I find no prejudicial error occurred in this ease. Cf. United States v. Gammons, 51 MJ 169 (1999) (procedure established to address prior punishment under Art. 15, UCMJ, 10 USC § 815).
It is clear that the military judge intended that appellant be given 8 months of confinement credit for unlawful pretrial punishment in violation of Article 13, UCMJ. It is just as obvious that he intended this credit be applied to the adjudged sentence. In fact, he specifically denied a motion of appellant to apply this credit to his sentence as approved by the convening authority. Thus, the military judge’s intent to afford a judicial remedy of limited and special nature, while irregular, was not flouted in this case. Cf. Suzuki, supra at 493.