Warning: mysqli_num_fields() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, boolean given in /home/ucmjdef1/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 3283

After being sentenced, the accused has the right to submit matters for the CA’s consideration

After being sentenced, the accused has the right to submit matters for the CA’s consideration

After being sentenced, the accused has the right to submit matters for the CA’s consideration

  1. ucmjlawfirm228See United States v. Davis , 20 M.J. 1015 (A.C.M.R. 1985) (holding that DC’s failureto submit matters under RCM 1105 and failure to mention under RCM 1106(f) that MJ strongly recommended suspension of the BCD was ineffective assistance). See RCM 1106(d)(3)(B) that now requires the SJA to bring to the CA’s attention recommendations for clemency made on the record by the sentencing authority. See also United States v. Gilley , 56 M.J. 113 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (holding that DC’s submission of three enclosures which reduced the accused’s chances for clemency was ineffective).
  2. United States v. Harris , 30 M.J. 580 (A.C.M.R. 1990). DC is responsible fordetermining and gathering appropriate post-trial defense submissions.
  3. United States v. Martinez , 31 M.J. 524 (A.C.M.R. 1990). DC sent the accused oneproposed RCM 1105 submission. When the defense counsel received no response (accused alleged he never received it), DC submitted nothing; ineffective assistance found.
  4. United States v. Tyson , 44 M.J. 588 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1996). Substitute counsel,appointed during 15-month lapse between end of the SPCM and service of the PTR, failed to generate any post-trial matters (in part because accused failed to keep defense informed of his address). No government error, but action set aside because of possible IAC.
  5. United States v. Sylvester , 47 M.J. 390 (C.A.A.F. 1998). Written submissions arepreferred, even if only to document an oral presentation.