Military Court-Martial Lawyers
  • Court-Martial Lawyers
    • Military Sexual Assault Lawyer - Article 120, UCMJ
    • Military Failed Drug Test
    • Article 80 Attempts
    • Article 81 Conspiracy
    • Article 118 Murder
    • Article 128 Assault - Military Assault Charges >
      • Maltreatment
      • Theft and Larceny Cases >
        • Article 132 Frauds Against the United States
      • Parental Discipline Cases
    • AWOL and Desertion >
      • Article 85 Desertion
    • Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming
    • Disrespect Offenses >
      • Article 92, UCMJ Failure to Obey an Order
    • Article 107 False Official Statements >
      • Obstruction of Justice
    • Pornography Cases
  • Court-Martial Appeals
    • Petitions for a New Trial
    • Legal and Factual Insufficiency of the Evidence
    • Summary Court-Martial
    • Multiplicity in the Military
    • Sentencing Severity
  • Discharge Review Board Lawyer
  • Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
  • Records Corrections
    • Reprimand Appeals
    • Evaluation Report Appeals
    • Qualitative Management Program Cases
    • Titling Actions
    • Cadet and Midshipmen Misconduct
  • Notable Cases
    • My Lai
    • Abu Ghraib
    • Haditha
    • Maywand District Murders
    • US v Scott
    • MARSOC
  • Our Team
    • Gary Myers
    • Daniel Conway
    • Brian Pristera
    • Lauren Johnson-Naumann
    • Joseph Galli
    • Matthew Flynn
  • Videos

Sentencing Severity

“Congress has vested responsibility for determining sentence appropriateness in the Courts of Criminal Appeals. The power to review a case for sentence appropriateness, which reflects the unique history and attributes of the military justice system, includes but is not limited to considerations of uniformity and evenhandedness of sentencing decisions.” United States v. Durant, 55 M.J. 258, 260 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (internal citations omitted).

​ As the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has made clear, “Article 66(c)’s sentence appropriateness provision is a sweeping Congressional mandate to ensure a fair and just punishment for every accused.” United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382, 384 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citations and internal quotations omitted). This provision “requires that the members of [the Courts of Criminal Appeals] independently determine, in every case within [their] limited Article 66, UCMJ, jurisdiction, the sentence appropriateness of each case [they] affirm.” Id. at 384-85 (alterations in original)(citations and internal quotations omitted).

Further, Courts of Criminal Appeals have the discretion to consider and compare other courts-martial sentences when that Court is reviewing a case for sentence appropriateness and relative uniformity. See United States v. Wacha, 55 M.J. 266, 268 (C.A.A.F. 2001). This Court has stated that “[a]lthough we generally consider appropriateness without reference to other sentences, we are required to examine sentence disparities in closely related cases[.]” United States v. Christian, 63 M.J. 714, 717 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (citing Wacha, 55 M.J. at 267-68) (citations omitted). Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that any cited cases are “closely related” to his or her case and that the sentences are “highly disparate.” United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286, 288 (C.A.A.F. 1999).
Court-Martial Appeals
​Petitions for a New Trial
​Insufficiency of the Evidence
Multiplicity in the Military
Appeals Blog Articles


Free Initial Consultation
Confidential. Valuable. Insightful.

(800) 355-1095 WORLDWIDE 24hrs
Submit
​Initial consultations are confidential, but do not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship.
Free Initial Consultation

(800) 355-1095 Worldwide Toll Free (24h)
(210) 568-2760 (digital fax)
myers@mclaw.us
​www.mcmilitarylaw.com

The information on this page is informational in nature. Nothing on this or associated pages should be construed as legal advice for a particular case. Likewise, the information on this website does not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
This military law firm has a worldwide presence serving locations such as Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Iraq, Quantico, Washington, DC, Fort Drum, Fort Stewart, Fort Lewis, Fort Eustis, Camp Pendleton, Camp LeJune, Schofield Barracks, Norfolk Naval Station, Lackland AFB, Langley Air Force Base, Fort Sam Houston, Fort Bliss, Germany, Korea, and all other installations.
Home
UCMJ Lawyers

Forms, Downloads, & Regulations
Recent Results
​Military Law Blog

Contact​
Payment Options
SiteLock
​© All Rights Reserved​
  • Court-Martial Lawyers
    • Military Sexual Assault Lawyer - Article 120, UCMJ
    • Military Failed Drug Test
    • Article 80 Attempts
    • Article 81 Conspiracy
    • Article 118 Murder
    • Article 128 Assault - Military Assault Charges >
      • Maltreatment
      • Theft and Larceny Cases >
        • Article 132 Frauds Against the United States
      • Parental Discipline Cases
    • AWOL and Desertion >
      • Article 85 Desertion
    • Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming
    • Disrespect Offenses >
      • Article 92, UCMJ Failure to Obey an Order
    • Article 107 False Official Statements >
      • Obstruction of Justice
    • Pornography Cases
  • Court-Martial Appeals
    • Petitions for a New Trial
    • Legal and Factual Insufficiency of the Evidence
    • Summary Court-Martial
    • Multiplicity in the Military
    • Sentencing Severity
  • Discharge Review Board Lawyer
  • Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
  • Records Corrections
    • Reprimand Appeals
    • Evaluation Report Appeals
    • Qualitative Management Program Cases
    • Titling Actions
    • Cadet and Midshipmen Misconduct
  • Notable Cases
    • My Lai
    • Abu Ghraib
    • Haditha
    • Maywand District Murders
    • US v Scott
    • MARSOC
  • Our Team
    • Gary Myers
    • Daniel Conway
    • Brian Pristera
    • Lauren Johnson-Naumann
    • Joseph Galli
    • Matthew Flynn
  • Videos