United States v. Roller
2016 CCA LEXIS 203
| N.M.C.C.A. | 2016Background
- Appellant, a Navy Special Warfare Operator (E-6), pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to making a false official statement and larceny; sentenced to 90 days confinement, reduction to E-4, and a bad-conduct discharge.
- Convening Authority (CA) approved the sentence but, per a pretrial agreement, suspended confinement and reduction below E-5 for six months and suspended the punitive discharge until administrative separation and issuance of DD214.
- The SJAR erroneously advised the CA that he could act only to effectuate the terms of the pretrial agreement, omitting the FY15 NDAA clarification that restored pre-effective-date authority for offenses committed before 24 June 2014.
- The appellant requested clemency asking to remain on active duty at E-6 until his end of service; the SJA’s misstatement effectively precluded broader clemency consideration by the CA.
- The CA’s action indicated the appellant’s confinement had been deferred, but there is no written deferment request in the record as required; absent a deferment, the sentence to confinement ran from the adjudication date and 82 days elapsed before the CA acted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SJAR misadvised the CA about his post-trial authority under Article 60 as amended by FY14 and clarified by FY15 NDAA | SJA (gov’t) advised CA he could act only according to pretrial agreement | Appellant contended (and court recognized) SJA misstatement limited CA improperly | Court held SJA misstatement was plain error that likely misled CA and prejudiced appellant’s clemency rights |
| Whether the CA’s failure to have a written deferment request invalidates the claimed deferment of confinement | CA’s action asserts confinement deferred | Record lacks any written deferment request required by R.C.M.; appellant did not produce one | Court held there was no valid deferment; confinement began on adjudication date and ran for 82 days before CA action |
| Whether the erroneous SJAR waiver issue was forfeited by appellant’s counsel not raising it post-trial | Govt argued forfeiture/waiver under R.C.M. 1106(f)(6) and Kho | Appellant did not timely object but court considered plain error review | Court applied plain-error analysis and found error was plain and materially prejudicial, warranting relief/remand |
| Appropriate remedy for the post-trial errors | Govt implicitly urged affirmance or harmless error | Appellant sought relief due to prejudicial processing errors | Court set aside CA’s action and remanded record for new SJAR and CA action (return to JAG for remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63 (C.A.A.F.) (plain-error standard for forfeited issues)
- United States v. Wheelus, 49 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F.) (remedies/remand for post-trial processing with possible prejudice)
- United States v. Wilson, 54 M.J. 57 (C.A.A.F.) (post-trial processing error principles)
- United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F.) (CA discretion to modify findings and sentence)
- United States v. Davis, 58 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F.) (importance of CA as source of clemency)
- United States v. Lamb, 22 M.J. 518 (N.M.C.M.R.) (sentence to confinement runs from adjudication absent approved deferment)