United States v. Sales
1986 CMA LEXIS 15602, 22 M.J. 305 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an appellate military court reassesses a sentence due to a prejudicial error at trial, it must not only determine that the sentence is appropriate for the affirmed offenses, but it must also be satisfied that the sentence is no greater than what the court-martial would have imposed absent the error.
Facts:
- Appellant Sales, a member of the United States Air Force, engaged in a sexual encounter with a female airman.
- During the encounter, Sales removed his pants, exposing himself.
- The encounter involved a group of people.
- Sales and the female airman engaged in an act of consensual sodomy.
Procedural Posture:
- Sales was tried by a general court-martial on charges of rape and forced sodomy.
- The court members convicted Sales of the lesser-included offenses of committing lewd and lascivious acts and consensual sodomy.
- The military judge advised the members that the maximum imposable confinement was 10 years, based on treating the two convictions as separate offenses.
- The court members sentenced Sales to a bad-conduct discharge, 6 months confinement, total forfeitures, and reduction in rank.
- Sales, as appellant, appealed to the United States Air Force Court of Military Review.
- The Court of Military Review held that the two convictions were multiplicious for findings, meaning they should be treated as a single offense.
- The Court of Military Review set aside the conviction for lewd and lascivious acts, affirmed the conviction for consensual sodomy, and reassessed the sentence.
- Upon reassessment, the Court of Military Review affirmed the original sentence in its entirety, finding it 'clearly appropriate.'
- Sales, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Military Appeals, which granted review on the issue of the sentence reassessment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an appellate military court properly reassess a sentence by only determining that it is 'appropriate' for the affirmed conviction, without also explicitly determining that the sentence is no greater than the one the trial court would have adjudged if the prejudicial error had not occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Everett, C.J.
No. An appellate military court's reassessment of a sentence following a trial error is insufficient if it only concludes the sentence is 'appropriate' for the remaining charges. To purge the prejudicial effect of a trial error under Article 59(a), the reviewing court must also be convinced that the sentence is no greater than the one the court-martial would have adjudged if the error, such as considering multiplicious findings as separate offenses for sentencing, had not occurred. The court reasoned that the duty to ensure an 'appropriate' sentence under Article 66 is distinct from the duty under Article 59(a) to remove all prejudice from a trial error. By merely stating the sentence was 'appropriate,' the Court of Military Review failed to demonstrate that it had considered whether the trial court's error—believing the maximum punishment was 10 years instead of 5—had improperly inflated the original sentence. Therefore, the case must be remanded for the lower court to apply the correct two-part standard.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial two-part test for sentence reassessment by military appellate courts, enhancing the protection of an accused's right to be sentenced by the original fact-finder. It clarifies that appellate review is not a simple substitution of judgment but a process to actively purge trial errors. By requiring courts to determine what sentence would have been imposed absent the error, the decision makes it more difficult for appellate courts to affirm original sentences after dismissing multiplicious charges. This precedent forces a more detailed and transparent analysis, ensuring that the prejudicial impact of an error on the sentence is fully and demonstrably removed.
