United States v. Pilola
201600222
| N.M.C.C.A. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Appellant, an assistant watch commander in USS ENTERPRISE security, secretly installed a camera above a restroom ceiling tile in March 2013 and remotely recorded users.
- Over ~13 months he recorded seven female shipmates (including subordinates) in various stages of undress while they used the restroom and performed hygiene or provided urine samples.
- A friend discovered a memory card in his car in March 2014 containing ~30 videos; some showed the APL-66 workspace bathroom and others the appellant’s home bathroom.
- Appellant was initially charged with seven specifications under Article 120c; under a pretrial agreement he pleaded to an Additional Charge and the seven specifications were withdrawn, reducing his potential exposure by ~30 years.
- The military judge convicted the appellant, and the convening authority approved 42 months confinement (with confinement beyond 24 months suspended per the PTA), reduction to E‑1, total forfeiture, and a dishonorable discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dishonorable discharge is inappropriately severe | Appellant: discharge is disproportionate to his offense | Government: sentence, including discharge, is appropriate given nature and harm of offense | Court affirmed — discharge not inappropriately severe |
| Whether record shows error materially prejudicial to substantial rights | Appellant: sentence relief warranted | Government: no legal or factual error affecting substantial rights | Court found no prejudicial error |
| Proper standard for appellate review of sentence | Appellant: urges reconsideration of length/severity | Government: defer to sentencing court and convening authority | Court applied de novo sentence appropriateness review and affirmed |
| Whether clemency rather than appellate relief appropriate | Appellant: requests leniency through appeal | Government: clemency is CA prerogative, not appellate function | Court declined to grant clemency, reserved to CA |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (de novo appellate review of sentence appropriateness)
- United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (appellate role in assuring punishment fits the offender and offense)
- United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (need for individualized consideration of offender and offense)
- United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (affirming sentence based on nature of offense and offender)