United States v. Jones
ACM 39140
A.F.C.C.A.Apr 28, 2017Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty at a judge-alone general court-martial to multiple wrongful drug uses (MDMA, LSD, marijuana) and attempting to frustrate urinalysis by submitting purchased urine; sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, six months confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E-1. Convening authority approved sentence under a pretrial agreement.
- After trial, Appellant submitted a clemency request seeking only a two-month reduction of confinement (from six to four months).
- The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) advised the convening authority in the SJAR that he lacked authority to disapprove, commute, or suspend any portion of confinement or the punitive discharge, and recommended approval of the adjudged sentence.
- Appellant’s trial defense counsel timely reasserted the sole request and correctly informed the convening authority that Article 60 permitted commutation or disapproval of confinement terms of six months or less, even when a punitive discharge was adjudged.
- The SJA’s addendum failed to correct the prior erroneous legal advice; the convening authority approved the sentence. Appellant appealed, asserting the erroneous SJA advice prejudiced his clemency and seeking relief or remand for new post-trial processing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SJA’s advice that the convening authority lacked power to commute/disapprove confinement was erroneous and prejudicial | SJA misstated law; convening authority retained power to commute/disapprove confinement of six months or less and would have considered/commuted two months | Government argued Article 60 prohibits such commutation when punitive discharge is adjudged (i.e., convening authority lacked that power) | Court held SJA erred; convening authority did retain that power and Appellant made a colorable showing of possible prejudice, meriting relief |
| Whether Appellant waived or forfeited challenge to erroneous advice | Appellant preserved issue via timely clemency submissions and counsel’s addendum | Government suggested statutory changes curtailed convening authority powers and SJA advice was correct | Court found no waiver/forfeiture and treated the error as reviewable legal issue |
| Appropriate remedy for erroneous post-trial advice | Appellant sought either two months’ confinement set-aside, discharge relief, or else remand for new post-trial processing | Government opposed extraordinary relief and urged affirmance | Court declined to grant immediate sentence relief and instead set aside the convening authority’s action and ordered new post-trial processing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. LeBlanc, 74 M.J. 650 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing post-trial processing errors and prejudice)
- United States v. Sheffield, 60 M.J. 591 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2004) (post-trial processing legal standards)
- United States v. Kerwin, 46 M.J. 588 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1997) (erroneous advice on substantial matters of fact or law can invalidate action when prejudicial)
- United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (low threshold for showing material prejudice from erroneous post-trial recommendation due to convening authority’s clemency power)