United States v. Coxborba
201600308
| N.M.C.C.A. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Appellant, a Marine, had a domestic dispute, expressed suicidal ideation, and was taken to Camp Lejeune ER for a mental health evaluation and released under command supervision.
- While at the command barracks he fled into the woods, told police to shoot him, and was taken back to the ER under supervision by a military police (MP) officer, his platoon sergeant, and a sergeant.
- In the ER waiting room, with other patients nearby (including an Army SFC and her three-year-old son), the appellant unholstered the MP’s duty pistol, pointed it at his head, and during a struggle the pistol discharged, lodging a bullet in a wall; no physical injuries occurred.
- Appellant pleaded guilty to assault on a person in execution of law enforcement duties, negligent discharge of a firearm, and reckless endangerment under the UCMJ; the military judge sentenced him to 18 months’ confinement, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.
- The convening authority approved the sentence but suspended confinement in excess of 12 months per a pretrial agreement and executed the remainder except for the discharge.
- Appellant’s sole assignment of error: the bad-conduct discharge is inappropriately severe because the misconduct was related to a suicide attempt.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bad-conduct discharge is inappropriately severe given the appellant’s suicidal state | Discharge is excessive because misconduct stemmed from a suicide attempt and mental health distress | Mental state does not mitigate reckless disregard for others; conduct put ER occupants at imminent risk | Affirmed: discharge appropriate; court declines to grant clemency in reviewing sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (sentence appropriateness reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (purpose of sentence appropriateness review is to ensure accused gets deserved punishment)
- United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (requirement to consider nature of offense and character of offender)
- United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (court may not perform acts of clemency when reviewing sentence)
- United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (factors for weighing extenuation and mitigation in sentence appropriateness)