United States v. Stortz
ACM S32377
A.F.C.C.A.Apr 17, 2017Background
- Appellant (Airman) pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to divers wrongful use and introduction of Oxycodone; sentence: BCD, 6 months confinement, reduction to E‑1; convening authority approved 4 months confinement per a pretrial agreement.
- After trial Appellant was confined at the Anchorage Correctional Complex (ACC) in administrative segregation for ~28 days due to lack of general-population space; he alleged near‑solitary confinement with limited recreation, delays in medication, and lack of shampoo causing sores.
- In clemency Appellant argued his post‑trial treatment constituted cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment and Article 55, UCMJ) and sought sentence‑appropriateness relief under Article 66(c), UCMJ.
- Government submitted affidavits from the JBER NCOIC and trial counsel: they reported periodic visits, availability of phones/recreation/showers/library on request, ACC medical procedures requiring onsite prescriptions (possible delays), and that Appellant did not use facility grievance or Article 138 procedures.
- The SJA’s addendum to the SJAR noted that the clemency matters were reviewed and left the earlier recommendations unchanged but did not separately analyze the asserted legal error about confinement conditions.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the record did not warrant a DuBay remand, found no Eighth Amendment/Article 55 violation, and declined to exercise Article 66(c) authority to reduce the sentence; it also found no prejudicial error in the SJA addendum. Findings and sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post‑trial confinement conditions warrant sentence‑appropriateness relief under Article 66(c) | Conditions (near‑solitary, medication delay, hygiene issues) were cruel/unusual and merit sentence relief | Conditions were administrative (space shortage), facilities/procedures available, Appellant did not use grievance/Article 138, not sufficiently oppressive | Denied — facts, even viewed favorably, do not warrant extraordinary Article 66(c) relief; no Eighth Amendment/Article 55 violation |
| Whether SJA’s addendum failed to address alleged legal error and prejudiced Appellant’s clemency | SJA’s failure to analyze the asserted legal error (confinement conditions) prejudiced clemency consideration and warrants relief or remand | Addendum incorporated clemency matters, R.C.M.1106(d)(4) does not require detailed analysis; alleged error had no merit so no colorable prejudice | Denied — addendum satisfied minimal requirement; no colorable showing of possible prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F.) (framework for deciding whether post‑trial fact‑finding/DuBay is required)
- United States v. Fagan, 59 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F.) (applying Ginn framework to post‑trial claims)
- United States v. Gay, 75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F.) (courts may in rare circumstances use Article 66 to grant sentence relief for post‑trial confinement conditions; limited scope)
- United States v. Wise, 64 M.J. 468 (C.A.A.F.) (prisoner must exhaust administrative grievance system and Article 138 before judicial relief)
- United States v. Catrett, 55 M.J. 400 (C.A.A.F.) (SJA addendum need only minimally respond; incorporation by reference can satisfy R.C.M. 1106(d)(4))