United States v. Winckelmann
2013 CAAF LEXIS 1435
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Appellant challenged remaining Article 134 and Article 133 convictions after remand for sentence reassessment.
- Lower court reassessed the sentence rather than ordering a full rehearing on sentence.
- Appellant originally faced a maximum exposure of 115 years; 31-year original confinement remained as a cap on rehearing.
- Convictions on remanded issues include one enticement of a minor, two indecent acts, two obstructing justice, and four conduct unbecoming offenses.
- Question presented: whether the CCA abused its discretion by reassessing instead of rehearing and how Moffeit factors should guide that decision.
- This Court held the CCA acted within its broad discretion and affirmed the reassessed sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there abuse of discretion in reassessing vs. rehearing? | Winckelmann contends there was an abuse by not rehearing. | Winckelmann argues the CCA should rehear for accuracy. | No abuse; reassessment acceptable under totality of circumstances. |
| What factors guide reassessment vs. rehearing? | Moffeit factors should be explicit and controlling. | Factors are illustrative, not exhaustive; broad discretion remains. | Factors are illustrative; court gave deference under totality of circumstances. |
| Did Jackson v. Taylor control remand/rehearing authority? | Jackson prohibits rehearing on sentence alone. | Jackson language is not controlling; Sales framework governs. | Jackson language remains binding; reassessment aligned with Sales framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 569 (1957) (board may reassess aggregate military sentences; rehearing on sentence alone not required)
- United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) (standard for determining reassessment vs rehearing; totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Moffeit, 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (affirmed Sales standard; concurrence urged illustrative factors)
- United States v. Miller, 10 U.S.C.M.A. 296 (1959) (rehearing on sentence alone may be appropriate)
- United States v. Riley, 58 M.J. 305 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (dramatic changes in penalty landscape as a factor)
- United States v. Buber, 62 M.J. 476 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (assessing scale of remaining offenses and aggravating evidence)
- United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (highly deferential review of reassessment under Article 66(c))