United States v. Dolehanty, 40510

Appellant, a commissioned officer in the Air Force with 17 years of service, was convicted at a general court-martial after a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement.
The plea agreement resulted in the dismissal of multiple serious charges (including sexual assault and domestic violence) in exchange for pleading guilty to fleeing apprehension and willful disobedience.
The agreement required that any adjudged sentence would include a dismissal from the service; the military judge also sentenced Appellant to 59 days' confinement and a reprimand.
Appellant's misconduct arose in part from diagnosed PTSD and alcohol use disorder stemming from military service.
On appeal, Appellant challenged whether requiring dismissal for lower-level offenses via plea agreement is contrary to public policy and whether his sentence was unduly severe.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Plea agreement requiring dismissal violates public policy	Mandatory dismissal for low-level offenses is against public policy and turns sentencing into an empty ritual.	The plea agreement was voluntary, explained to Appellant, and did not contravene law or public policy; judge retained sentencing discretion.	No violation of public policy; sentencing not an empty ritual.
Sentence severity (dismissal too harsh)	Dismissal is excessive given Appellant's lengthy honorable service and mitigating circumstances.	The agreed sentence was appropriate, considering the record and offenses; plea agreement terms indicate fairness.	Dismissal is not inappropriately severe; sentence affirmed.

United States v. Lundy, 63 M.J. 299 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (de novo review of plea agreement interpretation)
United States v. McAlhaney, 83 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2023) (sentence appropriateness review is de novo)
United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (considerations of uniformity and evenhandedness in sentencing)
United States v. Sothen, 54 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (scope of appellate authority in military justice)