Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
In United States v. Fischer, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals explained how military appellate courts interpret plea agreements and what an appellant must show to set aside a term of sentence as inconsistent with the agreement. The decision matters because plea agreements often control the most important part of a court-martial: sentencing.
The accusations.
The appellant pleaded guilty under a negotiated plea agreement to multiple Article 120 offenses. The agreement required a dishonorable discharge, set minimum and maximum confinement ranges for each specification, and required the confinement terms to run consecutively. But the agreement did not place any express limit on reduction in grade or reprimand. The military judge sentenced the appellant to a dishonorable discharge, 480 months of confinement, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. On appeal, the appellant argued that the reduction and reprimand exceeded the terms of the plea agreement.