Court Opinion

ID: 9836839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:12.655477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.038815
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge
(dissenting):
“In no instance ... may an appellate authority substitute its own judgment as to the appropriateness of the sentence, notwithstanding the error and its effect on the sentencing authority in arriving at that sentence.” United States v. Reed,, 33 MJ 98, 99 (CMA 1991), citing United States v. Suzuki, 20 MJ 248, 249 (CMA 1985)(emphasis added); see United States v. Cook, 48 MJ 434, 438 (1998); see also United States v. Maxwell, 45 MJ 406, 427 (1996). I concur completely with Judge Gierke that the majority has overlooked precedent and substituted its own judgment for that of the experienced, mature, and able judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See United States v. Cook, 46 MJ 37, 39 (1997); United States v. Hawes, 51 MJ 258, 260 (1999).
I am in total agreement with the firmly rooted legal principles set forth by the majority which must control review of this court-martial by both the Court of Criminal Appeals and our Court. We will overturn a sentence reassessment decision of a Court of Criminal Appeals only “to prevent obvious miscarriages of justice or abuses of discretion.” United States v. Jones, 39 MJ 315, 317 (CMA 1994); see Cook, 48 MJ at 437; United States v. Boone, 49 MJ 187, 195 (1998). Having examined every aspect of this record of trial in light of our legal precedent, I can find not one iota of evidence to indicate an obscure, let alone an obvious miscarriage of justice, or any abuse of discretion in the Army Court’s approval of a sentence that includes a punitive discharge.
This Court has consistently recognized the expertise of the judges on the Courts of Criminal Appeals to reassess sentences after finding error. See United States v. Peoples, 29 MJ 426, 429 (CMA 1990); Jones, 39 MJ at 317; see generally United States v. Lacy, 50 MJ 286 (1999). In fact, one can conclude that the Courts of Criminal Appeals judges are better skilled than this Court in the art of judicial sentencing because of their unparalleled responsibility under Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 USC § 866(c), as well as their prior roles as advisors to convening authorities.
There has been no finding that the three Court of Criminal Appeals judges were inexperienced or otherwise unequal to the task of performing their statutory duties pursuant to Article 66. As we have previously opined: “It is undisputed that military judges are presumed to know the law and to follow it, absent clear evidence to the contrary. . . . Certainly, appellate judges of the Courts of Criminal Appeals are deserving of no less a presumption.” United States v. Mason, 45 MJ 483, 484 (1997) (citations omitted). Accordingly, when three judges apply the principles that have been handed down by this Court to the facts of a particular case, see United States v. Sales, 22 MJ 305 (CMA 1986), where is the abuse of discretion?
Legal precedent is instructive. In Cook, 48 MJ at 434, the accused was convicted by a special court-martial of violating a lawful general regulation by possessing a proscribed knife and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the knife offense, affirmed the marijuana offense, and affirmed the adjudged and approved sentence without further modification. Although we remanded the case for clarification, we unanimously concluded that a Court of Criminal Appeals could reassess the approved sentence (and by implication, affirm that sentence), using Suzuki and Sales guidelines, despite dismissal of a charge which arguably was as serious as the remaining charge. On remand, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, in an unpublished opinion dated February 12, 1999, reassessed and affirmed the approved sentence.
In United States v. Davis, 48 MJ 494 (1998), the accused was convicted of assault *139with intent to commit rape and use of marijuana. On appeal, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals found error, voided the conviction for assault with intent to commit rape, but affirmed the lesser-included offense of indecent assault. The lower court then reassessed and affirmed the adjudged sentence, even though the maximum punishment which appellant faced after the appellate court’s action was reduced from 22 to 7 years. Again, the majority of this Court found no abuse of discretion or miscarriage of justice in Court of Criminal Appeals’ action.
In Hawes, 51 MJ at 258, a second lieutenant was convicted of using marijuana and fraternization and sentenced to a dismissal, reprimand, and forfeiture of pay. On appeal, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the fraternization conviction but affirmed the adjudged sentence. Again, four members of our court found no abuse of discretion.
My analysis of this Court’s cases from Suzuki, 20 MJ at 248, through United States v. Taylor, 51 MJ 390 (1999), impresses me with one fact: unless the Court of Criminal Appeals considers some improper, extraneous matter during its sentence assessment (Peoples, 29 MJ at 426), or attempts to fashion a sentence when the record is devoid of the evidence necessary to this process (Boone, 49 MJ at 187), we will not overturn the lower court’s judgment. See, e.g., Jones, 39 MJ at 315; United States v. Poole, 26 MJ 272 (CMA 1988). Why are we reversing the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case?
The majority asks how any appellate authority could know, with any degree of certainty, what punishment the trial court would have awarded under these circumstances. It is not a question of certainty of sentence but one of certainty in magnitude. “[T]he standard for reassessment is not what sentence would be imposed at a rehearing, but rather, would the sentence have been ‘at least of a certain magnitude.’ ” Taylor, 51 MJ at 391.
Appellant elected to be tried by military judge alone. In reassessing the sentence, the appellate court’s challenge was to determine the maximum sentence a trial judge (and former appellate judge), not a panel of members, would have imposed absent convicting appellant of aggravated assault. The court below knew that the trial judge had not only sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge (despite appellant’s pleas to save his retirement), but had also imposed the maximum term of confinement. It also knew the trial judge had emphasized on the record that appellant was to suffer no forfeiture of pay or allowances. As this Court has gained familiarity with the opinions and views of the various judges on the Courts of Criminal Appeals over the passage of time, I believe it is equally fair to infer that the same is true of the lower appellate courts and the trial judges whose records are reviewed. I can find absolutely no abuse of discretion in the Court’s conclusion that the trial judge would have, at least, sentenced this appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 3 months.
Appellant’s defense counsel has set forth several alternative reasons why the lower court abused its discretion. None of these reasons are persuasive and in fact are misleading. Contrary to defense counsel’s contention, trial counsel never argued that the aggravated assault charge was the most serious. As found by the Court of Criminal Appeals, “The gravaman of appellant’s misconduct was his repeated attempts during a six-week period to obstruct justice (a five-year offense), not the one-time aggravated assault (a three-year offense).” Unpub. op. at 7.
Having failed to convince the Court below that adultery, bigamy, and obstruction of justice did not warrant a punitive discharge, counsel argues alternatively that the Court somehow treated appellant unfairly by reversing the aggravated assault conviction so as to preclude appellant from introducing an extraneous affidavit concerning the supposedly perjurous testimony of Pok Sun Ever-sole.
This approach, which the majority opinion countenances, 53 MJ at 134 n. 3, is equally nonmeritorious. The court below acknowledged the conflicting testimony concerning the obstruction of justice charge and said, *140“[W]e do not believe appellant.” Unpub. op. at 7. Whether Pok Sun Eversole tried to influence one of her friends improperly is absolutely irrelevant and should not in any way enter into this Court’s consideration of whether the court below abused its discretion.
Finding no abuse of discretion, I have examined the reassessed sentence to ensure it is “ ‘appropriate in relation to the affirmed findings of guilty’ so as to ‘assure that the sentence is no greater than that which would have been imposed if the prejudicial error had not been committed.’ ” Davis, 48 MJ at 495, quoting Poole, 26 MJ at 274-75, quoting Suzuki, 20 MJ at 249.
I find no hint of a miscarriage of justice in this case. The military judge who imposed the sentence of this court-martial, the convening authority who approved the adjudged sentence without reduction, and the Court of Criminal Appeals had before them the evidence of appellant’s misconduct as well as his service record. This service record shows, inter alia, an Army career spent at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, punctuated by a 3-year tour in Germany and a 12-month assignment in Korea; a reduction from sergeant to specialist in 1982; appellant’s promotion to sergeant again 11 months later; a GT score of 118; and four awards of the Army Commendation Medal. I find nothing in appellant’s service to our nation that either singularly or collectively convinces me that the lower court’s reassessed sentence has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Finally, I note that appellant was on the verge of retirement eligibility. His right to retirement pay had not vested. Appellant’s attempts to gain retirement status prior to the completion of 20 years of service were unsuccessful. There is no evidence to indicate that after serving his sentence to confinement, appellant returned to active duty and completed the period of time necessary to be retirement eligible. To speculate that this appellant has somehow suffered a miscarriage of justice because he was denied retirement benefits is as wrong as it would be to speculate that the Secretary of the Army would withhold retirement until the Army successfully eliminated appellant under appropriate administrative procedures. In short, appellant has absolutely failed to convince me that he has suffered any miscarriage of justice.
Contrary to the opinion of the majority, this case does not involve “unusual circumstances.” 53 MJ at 134. The convening authority referred the case to a special court-martial, empowered to judge a bad-conduct discharge. We need not speculate why these serious offenses were referred to a special court-martial. The facts show, though, that the military judge sentenced appellant to the jurisdictional maximum of confinement and awarded him a bad-conduct discharge as a result of his conviction for adultery, bigamy, aggravated assault, and obstruction of justice. We know that the lower court dismissed one of the charges and reassessed the sentence in accordance with the law of this Court. In so doing, the judges from the Court of Criminal Appeals found that a bad-conduct discharge would have been an inevitable sentence of the Court. See Jones, 39 MJ at 315.
As both the majority and the dissent agree, appellant was engaged in trickery, deceit, and deception in his efforts to subvert the court-martial process. In light of the evidence of record, to include the fact that appellant had served 19 years and 10 months of active duty prior to his court-martial, I can find no abuse of discretion by the Court of Criminal Appeals nor any miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, I dissent.