United States v. Hassett
201600118
| N.M.C.C.A. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- Appellant, a Navy chief air controller, pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to multiple offenses arising from repeated domestic assaults and violations of a military protective order (MPO); the military judge consolidated three cabin-assault specifications into a single specification for reasons of unreasonable multiplication of charges.
- The military judge sentenced appellant to 85 days confinement, reduction to E-5, and a bad-conduct discharge; the convening authority (CA) approved the sentence but, per a pretrial agreement (PTA), suspended the bad-conduct discharge until appellant’s end of obligated service (EAOS) and remitted automatic reduction below E-5.
- After appellant’s arrest on new civilian charges (April 2016), the special court-martial convening authority (SPCMCA) convened an R.C.M. 1109 vacation hearing on short notice; the hearing officer relied on the police testimony, a criminal complaint, and—though not noticed to appellant—an MPO in recommending vacation of the suspension.
- The general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) vacated the suspension of the bad-conduct discharge based on the hearing record and recommendation.
- Appellant challenged (1) the court-martial order (CMO) that mistakenly listed the original three cabin specifications rather than the consolidated specification, (2) denial of due process in the vacation hearing (lack of notice of the MPO allegation), and (3) plain error in admission at presentencing of exhibits referencing uncharged and dismissed prior misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMO failed to reflect consolidation of three specifications into one | Appellant: CMO listing all three specs misstates convictions and could prejudice clemency | Government: RROT and other records reflected consolidation; no material prejudice | Court: Error in CMO; no colorable showing of prejudice but corrective action ordered (CMO must be amended) |
| Vacation hearing denied due process by relying on MPO not included in notice | Appellant: Did not receive written notice/disclosure of MPO allegation; unable to prepare or rebut; hearing violated R.C.M. 1109 and Morrissey due process | Government: Hearing considered assault allegations and police evidence; MPO evidence was related and considered | Court: Due process violation; omission of MPO in notice was structural error; vacation of suspension set aside |
| Admission of exhibits at presentencing that referenced uncharged or dismissed misconduct | Appellant: Admission was plain error and prejudiced sentencing | Government: No objection at trial; military judge presumed able to filter; any error was not materially prejudicial | Court: Even assuming error, not plain error; no material prejudice shown; admission upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F.) (unreasonable multiplication of charges addresses prosecutorial overreaching)
- United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19 (C.A.A.F.) (distinguishes remedy for unreasonable multiplication between findings and sentencing)
- United States v. Thomas, 74 M.J. 563 (C.A.A.F.) (consolidation or conditional dismissal as remedies for unreasonable multiplication)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process requires written notice and disclosure in parole-revocation-type proceedings)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (parole revocation due process protections apply to probation-like proceedings)
- United States v. Miley, 59 M.J. 300 (C.A.A.F.) (vacation hearing set aside for failure to comply with R.C.M. 1109 procedures)