United States v. Chin
2016 CAAF LEXIS 312
| C.A.A.F. | 2016Background
- Appellee entered a pretrial agreement (PTA) with a “waive all waivable motions” clause and a cap on punishment; the military judge found multiplicity waived and accepted the PTA and guilty pleas.
- Appellee was convicted of multiple specifications under Articles 92, 121, and 134, UCMJ, and sentenced to 12 months confinement, forfeiture, reduction, and a bad-conduct discharge; convening authority approved 10 months confinement and otherwise approved the sentence.
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) sua sponte dismissed/merged several specifications as an unreasonable multiplication of charges under its Article 66(c) review and reassessed the sentence, ultimately approving the adjudged sentence.
- AFCCA explained that despite the PTA waiver, Article 66(c) empowers CCAs to consider multiplicity/unreasonable multiplication claims when the charging scheme grossly exaggerates criminality.
- The Government appealed to this Court (C.A.A.F.), which affirmed the AFCCA, holding Article 66(c) requires full appellate review unless an accused validly waives appellate review post-trial under Article 61.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PTA waiver of "all waivable motions" bars a CCA from reviewing multiplicity/unreasonable multiplication claims under Article 66(c) | PTA waiver should preclude CCA review of waived issues; a valid trial waiver leaves no error to correct on appeal | PTA waiver does not and cannot waive the CCA’s statutory duty under Article 66(c); only a post-trial Article 61 waiver can eliminate CCA review | The CCA must conduct full Article 66(c) review notwithstanding a PTA waiver; only an Article 61 post-trial waiver can extinguish appellate review |
| Whether Article 66(c)’s "should be approved" language permits CCAs to disapprove findings/sentence despite trial waivers | Allowing CCA review of waived matters undermines plea/waiver finality and exceeds CCA authority | Article 66(c) mandates CCAs affirm only what is correct in law and fact and should be approved; Congress limited waiver of appellate review to Article 61 procedures | Article 66(c) requires CCAs to assess the entire record and they may disapprove findings/sentence when warranted, even if the issue was waived at trial |
| Whether PTA terms can effectively waive post-trial/appellate rights | PTA waiver can operate broadly to include waivable motions | PTA cannot circumvent Article 61’s exclusive mechanism for waiving appellate review after convening authority action | PTA cannot waive the statutory right to complete appellate review; RCM 705(c)(1)(B) and Article 61 control |
| Standard for when a CCA may deviate from enforcing a trial waiver | CCAs should defer to valid trial waivers except in narrow, well-defined circumstances | CCAs may enforce waiver but must still correct results that grossly exaggerate criminality under Article 66(c) | CCAs may disapprove/merge charges despite waivers when unreasonable multiplication is plainly presented and the charging scheme grossly exaggerates criminality |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (discusses waiver and plain-error review)
- United States v. Schloff, 74 M.J. 312 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Campos, 67 M.J. 330 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (trial waiver generally precludes appellate relief)
- United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (valid trial waiver extinguishes error)
- United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (scope of Article 66 review)
- United States v. Miller, 62 M.J. 471 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (mandatory CCA review when confinement one year or more)
- United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (CCAs must assess record when considering waiver)