United States v. Hamric, ACM 39096

Background

Appellant, an Air Force reservist on active duty at Hill AFB in 2014–2015, uploaded and exchanged numerous images and videos of child pornography and engaged in online communications seeking sexual content involving young children.
AFOSI investigation traced images to Appellant; searches found 110 child‑porn images on an external drive and 166 deleted images on his phone; he pleaded guilty to multiple specifications under Articles 92, 107, and 134, UCMJ.
Appellant was arrested, placed in pretrial confinement at the Weber County Confinement Facility (WCCF) as a Level 2 detainee, and later remained at WCCF post‑trial under similar restrictive conditions before transfer to a military facility.
The military judge granted Appellant two‑for‑one credit (446 days) for 223 days of pretrial confinement under Article 13, finding Level 2 classification imposed unduly rigorous conditions pretrial.
On appeal Appellant argued (1) his post‑trial confinement at WCCF violated Article 58 and constituted unlawful/overly punitive conditions warranting sentence relief, and (2) his sentence (dishonorable discharge, 9 years confinement, total forfeitures, reduction to E‑1) was inappropriately severe.
The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed findings and sentence, concluding Appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies, post‑trial classification and treatment were appropriate to his custody status, and no Eighth Amendment/Article 55 violation or Article 66(c) sentence relief was warranted.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether post‑trial confinement conditions at WCCF violated Article 58/constituted unlawful punishment and merit sentence relief	Post‑trial return to Level 2, with restrictive conditions and alleged worsening GI condition, violated equal treatment with civilians and reflected unlawful confinement conditions warranting relief	Appellant failed to exhaust prison grievance/Article 138 remedies; Level 2 classification appropriate given convictions and custody status; treated like civilian Level 2 inmates; medical care provided	Denied — appellant did not exhaust remedies, failed to show misclassification or differential treatment, no Eighth Amendment/Article 55 violation, and no Article 66(c) relief warranted
Whether sentence is inappropriately severe	Nine years confinement and dishonorable discharge are disproportionate given appellant’s service history and mitigation	Sentence is within the convening authority’s plea agreement cap; offenses were serious (possession/distribution and solicitation involving very young children); judge’s individualized sentencing appropriate	Denied — after de novo review court finds sentence not inappropriately severe

Key Cases Cited

United States v. McPherson, 73 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F.) (Article 58 requires military confinees in civilian facilities be treated equally with civilian inmates and separately from foreign nationals)
United States v. King, 61 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F.) (Article 13 prohibits pretrial punishment and unnecessarily rigorous pretrial conditions)
United States v. Wise, 64 M.J. 468 (C.A.A.F.) (must exhaust prisoner grievance system and Article 138 before judicial relief absent unusual circumstances)
United States v. White, 54 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F.) (administrative exhaustion requirement for confinement‑condition claims)
United States v. Lovett, 63 M.J. 211 (C.A.A.F.) (Eighth Amendment/Article 55 test: serious deprivation, deliberate indifference, and exhaustion)
United States v. Gay, 74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.) (Article 66(c) may provide sentence relief for post‑trial treatment even absent Eighth Amendment violation)
United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.) (scope of appellate sentence review under Article 66(c))
United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F.) (de novo review of sentence appropriateness)
United States v. Cole, 31 M.J. 270 (C.M.A.) (standards for appellate sentence review)