United States v. Flowers
201700184
| N.M.C.C.A. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Appellant (a Marine) was convicted at an uncontested special court-martial of using, distributing, and soliciting another Marine to use LSD in May 2016.
- Facts: appellant picked up a package of LSD, ingested it, distributed two tablets to LCpl AC in AC’s barracks room, and had earlier solicited Cpl DL by text.
- Sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, four months’ confinement, and reduction to E-1; convening authority approved.
- During sentencing, appellant introduced a pretrial agreement in which LCpl AC pled guilty at summary court-martial to lesser offenses and agreed to testify for the government.
- Appellant claimed (1) his sentence was inappropriately severe given his service and rehabilitative potential, and (2) his sentence was highly disparate compared to LCpl AC’s sentence.
- Court reviewed sentence appropriateness de novo, considered individualized factors (offense seriousness, offender character), and compared coactor dispositions and plea bargains in assessing disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sentence appropriateness | Appellant: sentence "inappropriately severe" given service record and rehabilitative potential | Government: sentence within bounds, less than maximum, accords with facts and pretrial negotiations | Court: Affirmed; sentence not inappropriately severe after individualized consideration |
| Sentence disparity between co-actors | Appellant: sentence is highly disparate from LCpl AC’s lighter summary-court outcome | Government: cases are closely related but disparity justified by differences in culpability and plea deal | Court: No highly disparate sentence; even if disparity existed, rational basis (plea/trial outcomes, greater culpability) justified it |
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. 395 (C.M.A. 1988) (purpose of sentence review is to assure accused gets punishment deserved)
- United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (necessity of individualized consideration of offender and offense)
- United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (appellate courts may not act as clemency boards)
- United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (burden on appellant to show closely related cases and high disparity; then government must show rational basis)
- United States v. Durant, 55 M.J. 258 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (sentence comparison does not require equation; some disparity acceptable)
- United States v. Noble, 50 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (relief for disparity requires proof of discriminatory or illegal prosecution/referral)
- United States v. Sothen, 54 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (even if disparity shown, appellate court assesses whether rational basis exists for it)