United States v. Booker
2013 CCA LEXIS 771
| N.M.C.C.A. | 2013Background
- Petty Officer Schaleger was charged in 2013 with two sexual-assault specifications under the amended Article 120 (offenses committed 7 Dec 2012, after the 28 Jun 2012 statute effective date). Trial was set for July 2013.
- The 2012 amendments to Article 120 did not initially include Presidentially-prescribed maximum punishments in the Manual for Courts‑Martial; the President issued Executive Order 13643 on 15 May 2013 prescribing maximum punishments (dishonorable discharge and 30 years confinement).
- The military judge (28 May 2013) ruled the maximum punishment for each charged specification was the summary‑court‑martial jurisdictional limit (1 month confinement, no punitive discharge), applying the rule of lenity and reasoning the Article 120 text in the 2012 Manual was not a Presidential amendment to Part IV.
- The Government petitioned this Court for extraordinary relief (writ of mandamus) to set aside the military judge’s ruling and direct application of the correct maximum punishments. The Real Party argued lack of jurisdiction and that mandamus was not warranted.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals considered: (1) whether it has authority under the All Writs Act to entertain a Government writ when Article 62 interlocutory appeal is unavailable; (2) whether the writ is in aid of its jurisdiction; and (3) whether mandamus is necessary, appropriate, and clearly warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a service Court of Criminal Appeals may entertain a Government petition for extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act when Article 62 does not authorize interlocutory appeal | Government: All Writs Act permits courts to issue writs in aid of jurisdiction; precedent allows Government petitions | Schaleger: Congress limited Government interlocutory review to Article 62, so hearing writ would usurp statutory limits | Held: Court may entertain Government writs under the All Writs Act where in aid of jurisdiction; Article 62 does not preclude such petitions |
| Whether the military judge’s ruling that maximum punishment is summary‑court limit was reviewable and in aid of appellate jurisdiction | Government: The ruling affects sentence and would defeat Article 66 automatic review; mandamus in aid of jurisdiction is proper | Schaleger: Lack of Article 62 appeal and no other adequate remedy; writ not warranted | Held: Review is in aid of the court’s jurisdiction because the ruling could defeat appellate review and affect potential sentence |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate (no other adequate means, clear and indisputable right, appropriateness) | Government: No other adequate remedy; military judge misapplied R.C.M. 1003 and Rule of Lenity; President’s Executive Order sets the max punishment | Schaleger: Military judge reasonably interpreted ambiguous rule; rights not clear and indisputable; mandamus extraordinary | Held: Mandamus appropriate — no other adequate remedy; right is clear and indisputable because judge misapplied R.C.M.1003 and exceeded authority |
| What is the correct maximum punishment for the charged Article 120 offenses committed between 28 Jun 2012 and 15 May 2013 | Government: Offenses are either listed/closely related to Part IV offenses or, if not, punishable under U.S. Code or custom of the service; maximum includes dishonorable discharge and 30 years confinement | Schaleger: Before Presidential action, the Manual did not list the offense for purposes of R.C.M.1003(c)(1)(A); lenity favors summary limits | Held: The military judge erred; under R.C.M.1003(c)(1)(B) the offenses are closely related to predecessor Article 120/aggravated sexual assault, and/or analogous to 18 U.S.C. §2242 and consistent with long service custom; maximum includes dishonorable discharge and 30 years confinement (and Executive Order 13643 confirmed this) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (All Writs Act authority for military courts)
- Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (standards for extraordinary relief)
- Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379 (mandamus only for clear abuse/usurpation)
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21 (writs to confine inferior court to lawful jurisdiction)
- Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (limits on Government appeals; mandamus in extraordinary cases)
- Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (All Writs Act as residual authority)
- United States v. Curtin, 44 M.J. 439 (CAAF recognizing Government petitions for extraordinary relief)
- Dettinger v. United States, 7 M.J. 216 (service court power to entertain Government extraordinary relief)
- United States v. Tualla, 52 M.J. 228 (only President may amend Manual)
- United States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39 (interpretation of R.C.M.1003 closely‑related language)