United States v. Jeter
202000270
| N.M.C.C.A. | Sep 27, 2021Background:
- Appellant Trajon A. Jeter (Airman, E-3) was tried by general court-martial on 8 September 2020 and pleaded/guilty or was found guilty to: one specification of destruction of military property (Art. 108) and three specifications of assault (including aggravated assault) (Art. 128).
- The military judge announced reduction to E-1, a bad-conduct discharge, and multiple terms of confinement tied to specific specifications: 24, 6, 1, and 1 months respectively.
- The judge’s oral announcement as to which confinement terms ran concurrently versus consecutively was internally inconsistent and mistakenly referenced a charge/specification for which Appellant was not convicted.
- The Entry of Judgment (EoJ) did not mirror the announced sentence; it misreferenced specifications and omitted the judge’s erroneous inclusion of an unrelated specification.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals found the announced sentence ambiguous and the EoJ inconsistent with the announcement and resolved the ambiguity in Appellant’s favor, modifying the adjudged sentence so all confinement terms run concurrently (total confinement 24 months).
- The findings and the sentence as modified were affirmed; Appellant credited with 167 days pretrial/judicially-ordered confinement to be deducted from the adjudged confinement.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge’s sentencing announcement was clear and unambiguous | Jeter: The judge misread and produced an internally inconsistent, ambiguous order of concurrent/consecutive confinement and referenced an unrelated charged spec | Government: No preserved assignment of error; implicitly that the record reflects the intended sentence | Court: Announcement was ambiguous and unclear; ambiguity resolved for Appellant (favorably) |
| Whether the Entry of Judgment correctly reflected the announced sentence or must be modified | Jeter: EoJ deviated from the announced sentence, misreferenced specifications, and failed to reflect the announced terms, prejudicing him | Government: EoJ may reflect the judge’s intent; no post-trial action altered sentence | Court: EoJ did not reproduce the announced sentence; court modified EoJ under R.C.M. 1111(c)(2) to reflect all confinement concurrent and directed inclusion in the record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitekiller, 8 M.J. 772 (N.C.M.R. 1979) (ambiguities in sentence resolved in favor of appellant)
- United States v. Eymer, 1 M.J. 990 (N.M.C.R. 1976) (ambiguities in sentencing terms resolved for the accused)
- United States v. Davis, 20 M.J. 903 (A.C.M.R. 1985) (ambiguities in pretrial agreements and sentencing construed for appellant)
- United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (accused entitled to accurate court-martial records)