July Decisions -- Air Force Court

This will be a bit out of order, but here are a couple of the July decisions of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Name: United States v. Pedro R. Venegas, ACM 36913
Decided: 31 July 2008
UCMJ Articles: 112a
Sentence: 4 months of confinement, Bad-Conduct Discharge (BCD), reduction to E-1
Issue(s): voluntariness of a confession; sufficiency of evidence
Status: Unpublished

Summary:

Pursuant to a guilty plea, A1C Venegas was convicted of possession and distribution of methamphetamine. On appeal, he argued pro se, via United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), that: (1) his confession was involuntary; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of meth.

The Court, using a totality of the circumstances test, held that his confession was voluntary because: (1) he was of average intelligence; (2) he did not suffer from a mental disability; (3) he was properly advised of his rights; (4) he understood his rights; (5) the interrogation was not lengthy; and (6) the interrogators did not make physical contact with him or threaten him.

The Court then held that the evidence was sufficient to support A1C Venegas's conviction. The Court noted that it had to construe all evidence in a light most favorable to the Government. The Court stated that the test was, after construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government, it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that A1C Venegas was guilty.

Name: United States v. Christopher M. Key, ACM S31341
Decided: 31 July 2008
UCMJ Articles: 134
Sentence: 12 months of confinement, BCD, reduction to E-1
Issue(s): severity of sentence, appellate power
Status: Unpublished

Summary:

Pursuant to a guilty plea, Amn Key was convicted of possession of child pornography and sentenced to, inter alia, a BCD. On appeal, he argued that the punitive discharge was inappropriately severe. The Court first cited Article 66(c) of the UCMJ and relevant case law for the proposition that it had the power to "lessen the rigor of a sentence," if justice required. The Court rejected Amn Key's appeal and held that the sentence was not inappropriately severe because: (1) he "perpetuate[d] a market that wrecks havoc on the lives of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society"; and (2) the conduct was "a clear departure from the norms of society and expected standards of conduct in the military."