Prior NJP for same offense

 

  1. uscourtmartiallawyers145United States v. Pierce , 27 M.J. 367 (C.M.A. 1989). Accused must be given credit for prior Article 15 punishment for same offense: day for day, dollar for dollar, and stripe for stripe.
  • United States v. Redlinski , 56 M.J. 508 (C.G. Ct .Crim. App. 2001), rev’d on other grounds , 58 M.J. 177 (C.A.A.F. 2003). Explaining how credit can be “administrative”/confinement credit applied to the approved sentence, or can be “judicial”/punishment credit applied to the adjudged sentence.
  • United States v. Edwards , 42 M.J. 381 (1995). When accused has received NJP for same offense, the military judge may, on defense request, give Pierce credit, obviating need for CA to do so.
  • United States v. Flynn , 39 M.J. 774 (A.C.M.R. 1994). When military judge is the sentencing authority, he is to announce the sentence and then state on the record the specific credit given for prior nonjudicial punishment in arriving at the sentence.
  • United States v. Zamberlan , 45 M.J. 491 (1997). Accused tested positive for THC, causing commander to vacate suspended Art. 15 punishment and also to prefer court-martial charge. Defense counsel requested instruction to panel that they must consider punishment already imposed by virtue of vacation action taken by commander with regard to suspended Art. 15 punishment. The court noted, “vacation of a suspension of nonjudicial punishment is not itself nonjudicial punishment.”
  • United States v. Bracey , 56 M.J. 387 (2002). Appellant convicted at a special court-martial of, among other offenses, disrespect to a superior commissioned officer and was sentenced to forfeiture of $630.00 pay per month for six months, reduction to E-1, confinement for six months and a BCD. Appellant argued, for the first time on appeal, that the disobedience handled at the Article 15 and the disrespect charge arose out of the same incident thus entitling him to Pierce credit. The CAAF held that the appellant was not entitled to Pierce credit since the offenses in question resulted from separate and distinct incidents despite their occurrence close in time and involving the same officer (i.e. victim). See also United States v. Anastacio , 56 M.J. 830 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2002).
  • United States v. Minyen , 57 M.J. 804 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2002). The appellant was convicted of unauthorized absence and missing movement; sentenced to eighty days confinement and a bad conduct discharge. One of the two unauthorized absence specifications was for a four and a half month absence for which the accused previously received nonjudicial punishment, specifically thirty days restriction, thirty days extra duty, and reduction to E-1. At trial, the military judge awarded the appellant thirty-three days of Allen credit (pretrial confinement credit) and thirty days of Pierce credit (prior nonjudicial punishment credit). The military judge advised the appellant that the sixty- three days credit would be deducted from the adjudged eighty day sentence. On appeal, the court noted that although the judge failed to follow the CAAF’s “guidance” in United States v. Gammons , 51 M.J. 169, 184 (1999), by failing to state on the record how he arrived at the specific Pierce credit awarded, Gammons was nonetheless satisfied by the award of the thirty days of Pierce credit (fifteen days for the restriction and fifteen for the extra duty). As for the action’s failure to specify the credit awarded, the court found no error, finding that the action complied with RCM 1107(f). The court did go on, however, to again recommend that a Convening Authority expressly state all applicable credits in his or her action. M. Prior board proceedings. United States v. Blocker , 30 M.J. 1152 (A.C.M.R. 1990). Accused entitled to credit for consequences of administrative board proceedings arising from same misconduct that is the subject of the court-martial.

Prior NJP

subject of the court-martial