United States v. Guinn
81 M.J. 195
| C.A.A.F. | 2021Background
- Guinn, a staff sergeant, was convicted at a general court-martial of sexual assault of a child under 12 and received a dishonorable discharge and four years confinement.
- While serving at the Joint Regional Confinement Facility (Fort Leavenworth), a JRCF policy barred child-sex-offender inmates from any contact with children unless they obtained an exception, which required admitting guilt and completing treatment.
- Guinn challenged the policy as increasing his sentence in violation of Article 55 and the Eighth Amendment and as violating his First and Fifth Amendment rights; he sought sentence relief from the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA).
- The CCA rejected the Article 55/Eighth Amendment claims but declined to consider the First and Fifth Amendment claims as "unsuitable" for Article 66(c) sentence-appropriateness review, saying another court was better positioned to address them.
- The CAAF granted review on whether the CCA’s Article 66(c) review was valid when it entertained Eighth Amendment claims but refused to consider Guinn’s First and Fifth Amendment claims; the CAAF held the CCA erred and must consider all constitutional claims and remanded for proper Article 66(c) review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CCA conducted a valid Article 66(c) review when it refused to consider Guinn's First and Fifth Amendment claims while addressing Eighth Amendment claims | Guinn: CCA must consider all constitutional challenges to post-trial confinement conditions because they can render the sentence incorrect in law or inappropriate | Gov: No precedent requires CCA review of non‑Eighth constitutional prison complaints; risk of limitless intrusion into prison administration; other courts better suited | CAAF: CCA erred — precedents require consideration of all constitutional claims under Article 66(c); remand for proper review |
| Whether the JRCF policy violated Guinn's First and Fifth Amendment rights (freedom of association; self-incrimination) | Guinn: the no-contact-unless-admit-and-treat rule violated association rights and compelled admissions | Gov: policy serves legitimate penological objectives; deference owed to prison administrators; no legal deficiency shown | Not decided by CAAF — remanded to CCA to adjudicate on the merits after proper review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 54 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (CCA authority includes ensuring adjudged sentence has not been unlawfully increased by prison officials and may review Eighth Amendment/Article 55 claims)
- United States v. Erby, 54 M.J. 476 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (Article 66(c) obliges CCAs to review sentence correctness in law, including post-trial confinement conditions)
- United States v. Gay, 75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (CCA may reassess sentence appropriateness based on post-trial confinement conditions even if they do not rise to Eighth Amendment/Article 55 violations)
- United States v. Pena, 64 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (prison policy can unlawfully increase severity of sentence; collateral administrative consequences generally are not punishment)
- United States v. Swift, 76 M.J. 210 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (CCAs have broad discretion under Article 66(c), and a complete Article 66 review is a substantial right of the accused)
- United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (CCA must determine whether a sentence is appropriate but has discretion in how to resolve that review)
- United States v. Miller, 46 M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (requirements for appellate consideration of post‑trial confinement claims, including exhaustion and showing a legal deficiency)
- United States v. Holt, 58 M.J. 227 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (remand is appropriate remedy when appellant did not receive proper Article 66(c) review)