United States v. Hargett
ACM S32323
| A.F.C.C.A. | Jul 20, 2016Background
- Appellant (A1C Jamie Hargett) pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to disobeying a commander’s order and wrongfully using oxycodone and cocaine; approved sentence: BCD, 100 days confinement, reduction to E‑1. Appellant received 70 days pretrial confinement credit.
- After multiple positive urinalyses for oxycodone (and later oxymorphone and cocaine), the commander ordered Appellant into pretrial confinement; R.C.M. 305 reviews were performed within required timeframes.
- A PCRO reviewed evidence (prior summary court-martial, multiple positive tests, recommendation for 28-day inpatient treatment) and concluded confinement should continue because Appellant had repeatedly failed voluntary programs and posed a risk of continued drug use.
- Appellant sought release from confinement to attend a voluntary civilian inpatient treatment program; the PCRO and the commander denied release after receiving an affidavit describing the program.
- Appellant argued at trial and on appeal under Article 13, UCMJ, that pretrial confinement in lieu of treatment (and resulting withdrawal) amounted to unlawful punishment or unnecessarily rigorous conditions warranting additional credit.
- The military judge and this court found no Article 13 violation: no evidence the government intended to punish pretrial, no government-caused denial of medical care, and the PCRO’s reliance on Appellant’s history and risk was a permissible basis for continued confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial confinement (instead of release to voluntary inpatient treatment) violated Article 13 by imposing punishment or unnecessarily rigorous conditions | Hargett: confinement prevented access to treatment, forced withdrawal inhumane, constituted unlawful pretrial punishment/overly rigorous conditions | Government: PCRO permissibly found confinement necessary based on repeated positive tests, failed voluntary programs, risk of continued drug use; no showing of government-caused denial of medical care or intent to punish | Court: No Article 13 violation; PCRO and military judge did not abuse discretion; Appellant failed to meet burden to show punishment or overly rigorous conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harris, 66 M.J. 166 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (burden on accused to prove Article 13 violation)
- United States v. King, 61 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (appellate court reviews de novo legal entitlement to Article 13 credit; factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Huffman, 40 M.J. 225 (C.M.A. 1994) (commander’s intent is a significant factor in Article 13 analysis; citing Bell v. Wolfish)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (framework for determining whether pretrial conditions constitute punishment)
- United States v. Inong, 58 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (discussing precedent and scope of Article 13 analysis)
- United States v. Palmiter, 20 M.J. 90 (C.M.A. 1985) (limitations on using outside duties or placements as substitute for confinement when purpose is to prevent flight)