United States v. Specialist RAYMOND J. COOPER
ARMY 20150425
A.C.C.A.Nov 7, 2016Background
- Appellant (Spc. Raymond J. Cooper) was tried by general court-martial and pleaded guilty to two specifications of aggravated assault; convicted, contrary to plea, of attempted murder and an aggravated assault causing grievous bodily harm.
- The charged acts involved stabbing PFC C.L.C. in the neck and back at Camp Casey, Korea, on or about 20–21 September 2014; findings substituted “back” for “chest.”
- The military judge found the attempted murder (Charge I, Spec. 1) and the aggravated assault causing grievous bodily harm (Charge II, Spec. 1) were not multiplicious and not unreasonably multiplied for findings, but were an unreasonable multiplication for sentencing.
- The judge merged the two specifications for sentencing (treated them as a single offense for punishment) rather than dismissing one for findings.
- On appeal under Article 66, UCMJ, appellant argued the judge abused his discretion by not dismissing Charge II, Spec. 1 for findings because it arose from the same conduct as Charge I, Spec. 1.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals set aside and dismissed Specification 1 of Charge II, affirmed the remaining findings, and reassessed the sentence under Winckelmann principles; other Grostefon matters did not warrant relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two specifications based on the same stabbing were an unreasonable multiplication of charges for findings | Cooper: The two specs arise from the same transaction and should not both survive findings; one should be dismissed | Government: The offenses have distinct elements (attempted murder vs. assault with grievous bodily harm); not unreasonably multiplied for findings | Court: Abuse of discretion — the two specs were substantially the same act; Specification 1 of Charge II dismissed for findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (sets five-factor test for unreasonable multiplication of charges)
- United States v. Pauling, 60 M.J. 91 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for unreasonable multiplication)
- United States v. Monday, 52 M.J. 625 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 1999) (discusses review standard and multiplication concerns)
- United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (principles for reassessing sentence after findings error)
- United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) (requirements for appellant’s post-trial matters and submissions)