Courts Martial Appeals

Right to Counsel. The military accused has a right, without cost, to the services of a military appellate defense counsel at all appellate review levels, including review by the Supreme Court. The military accused also has the right to hire a civilian attorney to represent the accused at all appellate review levels. If the military accused chooses to hire a civilian attorney to represent them at the appellate level, the military accused may still keep the services of the military appellate defense counsel, without cost.

Do not waive this right and do not count on the system to protect your appellate rights.
Mr. Culp is experienced at reviewing records of trial and aggressively fighting your case in the military appellate courts.

Automatic Review and The Article 69 Process.  If there is an approved sentence which includes a sentence of death, a punitive discharge (Dishonorable Discharge or Bad Conduct Discharge for enlisted personnel; Dismissal for officers), or confinement for one year or more, the Courts of Criminal Appeals of the accused’s branch of service will automatically review the case.  The accused can waive this automatic review in all cases, except death penalty cases.  An accused who waives his appellate rights will still have his case reviewed, pursuant to Article 69 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by the service Judge Advocate General for legal errors and possible referral to the appellate courts.

Review By the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Each military service has established a Court of Criminal Appeals which is composed of one or more panels, and each panel has not less than three appellate military judges.  For the purpose of reviewing court-martial cases, the court may sit in panels or as a whole.  The court, sitting as a whole, may reconsider any decision of a panel.  Appellate military judges who are assigned to a Court of Criminal Appeals may be commissioned officers or civilians, each of whom must be a licensed attorney.  The Judge Advocate General of each Service designates one of the appellate military judges of that Service’s Court of Criminal Appeals as chief judge.  The chief judge assigns the appellate judges to the various court panels and determines which military judge will serve as the senior judge on each panel. The Court of Criminal Appeals can correct any legal error it finds, and it can reduce what it considers to be an excessive sentence.  Under Article 66©, UCMJ, the Court may only affirm findings of guilty and the sentence or such parts of the sentence that it finds correct in law and fact.  In considering the record, the Court may weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine disputed questions of fact, recognizing that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses.  Most civilian appellate courts can only consider issues of law, not questions of fact.  They are bound by the findings of fact made by the civilian trial court.  The power of the Court of Criminal Appeals to also consider questions of fact is a unique and important right afforded an accused under the UCMJ.  Of course, similar to civilian appellate courts, the Court of Criminal Appeals cannot change a finding of “not guilty” to a finding of “guilty,” nor can it increase the severity of the sentence approved by the court-martial convening authority. 

Jurisdiction of the Courts of Criminal Appeals.  Each Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to review courts-martial in which the sentence, as approved: extends to death; dismissal of a commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman; dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge of enlisted personnel; or confinement for one year or more.  These courts may also review cases referred to the Court by the Service’s Judge Advocate General.  In addition, the Courts may, in their discretion, entertain petitions for extraordinary relief including, but not limited to, writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition.  Except in a death penalty case, the right to appellate review may be waived by the accused.

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.  Five civilian judges, appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, comprise the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and serve for a term of 15 years.  CAAF is responsible for overseeing the military justice system.  In all but death penalty cases, which it reviews automatically, and cases certified by the Judge Advocate General, CAAF chooses upon petitions for review which cases it will consider, similar to Federal courts of appeal.

United States Supreme Court.Military members convicted of crimes may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of their case.  Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces are subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.  However, the Supreme Court may not review a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which had refused to grant a petition for review.  The military accused has a right, without cost, to the services of a military appellate defense counsel at all appellate review levels, including review by the Supreme Court.  The military accused may petition the U. S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari without prepayment of fees and costs.

Possible Appellate Issues.

We are pleased to share some of the possible issues they looks for in the record of
trial.  These issues are for informational purposes only and may or may not apply to your case;

    - Was your guilty plea conclusory?
    - Was your sentence inappropriately severe?
    - Did the military judge commit error?
    - Are you entitled to credit because the government violated Rules for Courts-Martial 305?
    - Were you subjected to an unreasonable multiplication of charges?
    - Was there sufficient evidence to convict you?
    - Did the military judge abuse his/her discretion?
    - Did the military judge use the correct reasoning when a panel/jury member was excused?
    - Did the government violate Brady v. Maryland?
    - Are you entitled to UCMJ Article 13 credit?

You have the right to aggressive civilian representation during all phases of the appeal process.  Mr. Culp looks forward to consulting with you about your case.