United States v. Linthicum
ACM 39039
| A.F.C.C.A. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Appellant (Air Force nurse practitioner) pleaded guilty at a general court-martial pursuant to a pretrial agreement to willful dereliction (bringing an unregistered firearm on base), wrongful use/possession of oxycodone, and fraternization; sentenced to a dismissal and five months confinement, approved by the convening authority.
- Appellant served confinement in a civilian jail; about one month in he passed kidney stones, sought and received medical attention and medications, and later passed additional stones and was transported to a hospital where care was provided and medications prescribed.
- Unit members and Air Force confinement officials monitored his condition; records and medication logs showed he maintained access to prescribed medications and received treatment consistent with medical advice from on-base and jail medical personnel.
- In clemency, Appellant complained of inadequate pain/medical treatment and asked relief; the convening authority declined further clemency (but waived forfeitures for dependents).
- On appeal Appellant argued (1) Eighth Amendment/Article 55 violation and failure of his command to intervene regarding denial of prescribed care in post-trial confinement, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in advising him about dismissal and VA benefits/medical retirement.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment / Article 55: post-trial medical care | Denial of access to prescribed medication and inadequate treatment for kidney stones amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and command indifference deserving sentence relief | Appellant received timely medical attention, medications, and monitoring; he did not exhaust jail grievance procedures and officials were not deliberately indifferent | No Eighth Amendment/Article 55 violation; no deliberate indifference; exhaustion lacking; no sentence relief warranted under Article 66(c) |
| Article 66(c) authority to grant sentence relief absent constitutional violation | Unit indifference caused needless suffering and merits Article 66(c) relief to send a message and prevent recurrence | Extraordinary relief under Article 66(c) is reserved for rare circumstances; facts do not show legal error or egregious post-trial conduct | Declined to exercise Article 66(c) to grant relief; appellate court will not act as a general post-trial grievance forum |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (Sixth Amendment/Strickland) | Counsel misadvised about medical retirement/VA benefits; Appellant would not have requested a dismissal if properly advised | Counsel advised Appellant about consequences; Appellant signed a detailed memorandum and certified satisfaction; declarations from counsel corroborate competent advice | Counsel’s performance was not deficient; no prejudice shown — claim of ineffective assistance denied |
| Plea & plea advisement voluntariness | Plea induced by counsel errors regarding consequences (VA/medical retirement) | Plea colloquy, written memorandum, and counsel declarations show informed, voluntary choice against counsel’s advice | Plea and sentence are correct in law and fact; Appellant’s plea stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gay, 75 M.J. 264 (CAAF) (Article 66(c) relief in limited, unique post-trial circumstances)
- United States v. Lovett, 63 M.J. 211 (CAAF) (Eighth Amendment framework: evolving standards and unnecessary/wanton infliction of pain)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Sup. Ct.) (application of Strickland to guilty pleas)
- United States v. Wise, 64 M.J. 468 (CAAF) (prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before judicial relief for post-trial confinement conditions)
- United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (CAAF) (appellate factfinding principles when resolving claims without additional fact-finding)