U.S. v. Williams - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

More documents

Recommendations

Info

United States v. Williams, No. 01-0675/NAJudge BAKER delivered the opinion of the court.On November 16, 1999, appellant pled guilty without thebenefit of a pretrial agreement to unauthorized absence,larceny, and forgery, in violation of Articles 86, 121, and 123,Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886, 921, and 923,respectively. A military judge sitting as a special courtmartialfound appellant guilty in accordance with these pleasand adjudged a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 100 days,and a fine of $1,500. The convening authority approved thesentence as adjudged, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmedin an unpublished opinion. No. 200000895 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.May 7, 2001). The granted issue requires our review of thepost-trial handling of a military servicemember’s case. 1Here,we find error and remand.BACKGROUNDAfter announcing the sentence during appellant’s courtmartial,the military judge made the following comments on therecord:I would ask the trial counsel to passto the convening authority the nature andcontent of the accused’s stated desire tohave another chance and that he’s learnedhis lessons and that the convening authorityand the chain of command that knows Seaman1Granted Issue:WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TOREMAND THIS CASE TO THE CONVENING AUTHORITY FOR A NEW COMMANDJUDGE ADVOCATE’S RECOMMENDATION AND CONVENING AUTHORITY’SACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR RAISED BELOW.2
United States v. Williams, No. 01-0675/NARecruit Williams take into considerationwhether they want to defer or suspend anyportion of this sentence in order to allowhim to have a suspended bad-conductdischarge and demonstrate that his stateddesire to continue his enlistment issomething that he can pull off.I say that in light of the nicetestimonials from two pastors and from hismother concerning his intended desire to dowell in the Navy, as well as his youth, andrealizing that hopefully, if he has learnedfrom this experience and the brig canperform its rehabilitative function, thatSeaman Recruit Williams may have anopportunity to fulfill that enlistment.On January 19, 2000, trial defense counsel submittedmatters to the convening authority on behalf of appellantpursuant to RCM 1105, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States(2000 ed.). 2 The submission expressly requested, inter alia,that the convening authority suspend the bad-conduct discharge.However, it did not reference the military judge’s comments madeon the record. The command judge advocate’s recommendation(CJAR), dated April 19, 2000, includes the first paragraph ofthe military judge’s comments quoted above, but not the secondparagraph. Trial defense counsel acknowledged receipt of therecommendation on May 24, 2000; however, the convening authorityissued his action the previous day, May 23, 2000.RCM 1106(f) requires the following:(1) Service of recommendation on defensecounsel and accused. Before forwarding the2All Manual provisions cited are identical to those in effect at the time oftrial.3
Page 1: UNITED STATES, Appelleev.Sean M. WI
Page 5 and 6: United States v. Williams, No. 01-0
Page 13 and 14: United States v. Williams, No .01-0

U.S. v. Williams - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?