United States v. Arness
2015 CAAF LEXIS 720
| C.A.A.F. | 2015Background
- Appellant was convicted by a general court-martial of multiple specifications under UCMJ Articles 86, 107, and 133.
- The convening authority approved a sentence of confinement for eleven months and a reprimand.
- The JAG elected not to send the case to the CCA for review under Article 69(a).
- Appellant sought extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis at the CCA.
- CCA held it had jurisdiction under Article 69(d) and denied relief on the merits; Petitioner then appealed to this Court.
- This Court held that the CCA was without jurisdiction to review the case, vacated the CCA judgment, and dismissed the writ-appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CCA had jurisdiction under Article 69(d) to entertain the writ petition | Arness argued CCA could review under Article 69(d)(1)-(2) even without TJAG referral. | Arness contends TJAG referral is required for Article 69(d) review and CCA lacked referral in this case. | CCA lacked jurisdiction; writ-appeal dismissed. |
| Whether Article 69(d) should be read to authorize two independent grants of jurisdiction | Disjunctive reading allows CCA review if TJAG acts or if TJAG refers the case, independently. | Majority reads the conjunctive reading requiring referral and subsequent action; no independent grant. | Disjunctive reading possible but rejected; majority view upheld for lack of TJAG referral. |
| Whether the Government’s view on Article 69(d) undermines the purpose of military appellate review | Article 69 should provide meaningful judicial review for sub-jurisdictional sentences. | TJAG discretion and Article 69 structure limit review; expansive jurisdiction not warranted. | Court endorses restricted jurisdiction; urges clarification of Article 69. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unger v. Ziemniak, 27 M.J. 349 (C.M.A.1989) (expansive remedial jurisdiction rejected)
- McPhail v. United States, 1 M.J. 457 (C.M.A.1976) (overruled aspects; jurisdictional limits discussed)
- Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (S. Ct. 1999) (rejected expansive jurisdiction for admin matters)
- Dew v. United States, 48 M.J. 639 (A.Ct.Crim.App.1998) (Army CCAs’ supervisory role cited for writs)
- Monett, 16 C.M.A. 179 (C.M.A.1966) (certification provision context for Article 69)
- King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (U.S. 2015) (statutory interpretation can depart from plain language)