United States v. Murray
201600161
| N.M.C.C.A. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Appellant, a Marine, pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to desertion, unauthorized absence terminated by apprehension, willful disobedience of a lawful order (NCO), escape from custody, and larceny.
- While under investigation for larceny, she went UA on 8 May 2006; after returning briefly on 15 June 2006 she was apprehended and ordered to stay in her barracks.
- On 16 June 2006 she took her roommate’s car, drove to New York, abandoned the vehicle, and remained a deserter until arrested on 13 October 2015.
- The military judge sentenced her to 12 months’ confinement, reduction to E‑1, and a bad‑conduct discharge (BCD); convening authority suspended confinement beyond 180 days per a PTA.
- Appellant’s unsworn statement raised hazing and mistreatment after disclosure of her sexual orientation and presented mitigating evidence (medical issues, employment/education during desertion, foster care/mentoring). She did not contest providence of pleas.
- The appellant argued on appeal that the BCD was inappropriately severe under the case’s unique facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bad‑conduct discharge was inappropriately severe given the unique facts and mitigation | BCD is overly harsh given hazing, duress-like circumstances, long post‑desertion rehabilitation, and mitigation evidence | Sentence is appropriate given serious misconduct: thefts, escape, stealing a vehicle, and nine‑year desertion; clemency is for the CA | Affirmed: BCD appropriate; court declines to substitute clemency for convening authority |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (standard for de novo sentence appropriateness review)
- United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (courts should not perform clemency functions reserved to convening authorities)
- United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (requirement of individualized consideration in sentence review)
- United States v. Mamaluy, 27 C.M.R. 176 (C.M.A. 1959) (foundation for individualized sentencing consideration)
- United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (appellate court determines sentence appropriateness)