United States v. Maldonado-Negrin
201600204
| N.M.C.C.A. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Appellant, a Marine, pled guilty at a special court-martial to unauthorized absence, wrongful use of heroin, larceny, and failure to pay debts; military judge sentenced him to 12 months confinement, reduction to E‑1, and a bad‑conduct discharge, approved by the convening authority (CA).
- Appellant borrowed over $2,600 from fellow Marines by deception, stole $800 via worthless checks, and undertook two unauthorized absences to obtain/use heroin.
- The appellant and CA signed a pretrial agreement (PTA) limiting exposure to special court‑martial jurisdiction; the PTA required restitution and the CA referred the case consistent with the PTA.
- The Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation (SJAR) stated the PTA "has no effect on the sentence adjudged;" appellant contends the SJAR failed to attach or sufficiently summarize the PTA as required by R.C.M. 1106(d)(3).
- Appellant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present addiction‑origin evidence or victim witnesses, for a deficient sentencing argument, and for a deficient clemency request; defense presented family letters, photos, testimony, the appellant’s unsworn statement, and emphasized rehabilitation.
- Appellant argued his sentence (including a bad‑conduct discharge) was inappropriately severe.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| SJAR deficiency re: PTA (R.C.M. 1106(d)(3)) | SJAR failed to attach or summarize PTA; requires remand for new post‑trial processing | PTA and CA’s actions were integral and SJAR’s statement that PTA had no effect, plus Report of Results of Trial, meant no prejudice | Court declined remand; no material prejudice to substantial rights |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple claims) | Counsel unreasonably failed to introduce expert or origin‑of‑addiction evidence, failed to call additional victim character witnesses, gave weak sentencing argument, and filed inadequate clemency request | Defense strategy to avoid introducing potentially aggravating uncharged misconduct was reasonable; sentencing theme of rehabilitation was presented; CA’s clemency powers were limited so broader request was sensible | Counsel not deficient; no Strickland prejudice shown |
| Sentence appropriateness (bad‑conduct discharge) | Sentence was unduly severe given addiction and rehabilitation prospects | Offenses involved exploitation of fellow Marines; individualized consideration supports sentence; reducing sentence would be clemency | Sentence affirmed; court will not substitute its judgment for CA clemency powers |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63 (discussing plain error standard for post‑trial matters)
- United States v. Chatman, 46 M.J. 321 (prejudice threshold for SJAR errors requires a colorable showing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (deference to reasonable strategic choices by defense counsel)
- United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (principles of sentence appropriateness)