U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 39676 (rem)
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
D’Andre M. JOHNSON
Second Lieutenant (O-1), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
On Remand from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Decided 19 July 2022
________________________
Military Judge: W. Shane Cohen.
Approved Sentence: Dismissal, confinement for 10 years, and forfeiture
of all pay and allowances. Sentence adjudged 1 December 2018 by GCM
convened at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.
For Appellant: Major Sara J. Hickmon, USAF; Mark C. Bruegger, Es-
quire; Catherine M. Cherkasky, Esquire.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Brian C. Mason, USAF; Lieutenant
Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Major Anne M. Delmare, USAF; Major
John P. Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before POSCH, RICHARDSON, and MEGINLEY, Appellate Military
Judges.
Judge RICHARDSON delivered the opinion of the court, in which Senior
Judge POSCH joined. Judge MEGINLEY filed a separate opinion, dis-
senting in part and in the result.
________________________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
________________________
United States v. Johnson, No. ACM 39676 (rem)
RICHARDSON, Judge:
Contrary to his pleas, a general court-martial composed of officer members
convicted Appellant of one specification of sexual assault of AM, by penetrating
AM’s vulva with his penis while AM was incapable of consenting to the sexual
act due to impairment by alcohol, and one specification of sexual assault of MP,
by penetrating her vulva with his finger by causing MP bodily harm, both in
violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C.
§ 920.1 The panel sentenced Appellant to a dismissal, confinement for ten
years, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The military judge credited Ap-
pellant with 138 days against his sentence for time Appellant spent in pretrial
confinement. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
I. BACKGROUND
On initial appeal, Appellant contended, inter alia, that he suffered cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution2 and Article 55, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 855, due to inhumane
and dangerous conditions and mistreatment while in post-trial confinement.
In a related claim, Appellant contended that the conditions of his post-trial
confinement render his sentence inappropriately severe. Considered together,
the claims sought relief under this court’s authority to affirm “the sentence or
such part or amount of the sentence” as we “find[ ] correct in law and fact and
determine[ ], on the basis of the entire record, should be approved.” Article
66(c), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 866(c).
In United States v. Johnson, No. ACM 39676,
2020 CCA LEXIS 364 (A.F.
Ct. Crim. App. 16 Oct. 2020) (unpub. op.), rev’d and remanded in part,
81 M.J.
451 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (mem.), we found Appellant failed to meet his burden that
he was subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, and we concluded that he
was not entitled to relief under the Eighth Amendment or Article 55, UCMJ.
In particular, we found Appellant did not demonstrate deliberate indifference
of prison officials, exhaustion of the prisoner-grievance system, or that he pe-
titioned for relief under Article 138, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 938. Johnson, unpub.
op. at *54; see also United States v. Lovett,
63 M.J. 211, 215 (C.A.A.F. 2006).
We “also considered whether Appellant’s assertions [regarding his post-trial
confinement conditions] warrant sentence relief under our Article 66(c),
UCMJ, authority,” without considering Appellant’s extra-record matters, and
found Appellant’s sentence was appropriate.
Id., unpub. op. at *55, *56 n.12.
1 All references in this opinion to the UCMJ, Rules for Courts-Martial, and Military
Rules of Evidence are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.).
2 U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.
2
United States v. Johnson, No. ACM 39676 (rem)
Finding no errors that materially prejudiced Appellant, we affirmed the find-
ings and sentence.
Appellant petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces (CAAF) to review his case, and the CAAF granted that petition on the
following issue:
During clemency, Appellant detailed the deplorable conditions
of his post-trial confinement. On appeal, he provided supplemen-
tary information on these conditions to support his claims of
cruel and unusual punishment and to seek sentence relief. Did
the lower court err when it decided it could not consider this sup-
plementary evidence for its sentence appropriateness review?[3]
United States v. Johnson,
81 M.J. 229, 229–30 (C.A.A.F. 2021).
The CAAF summarily disposed of the issue, affirming our decision as to
findings but reversing it as to sentence. Johnson, 81 M.J. at 452. The CAAF
“note[d] that in its sentence appropriateness review, the United States Air
Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in failing to consider additional infor-
mation about Appellant’s post-trial confinement conditions even though Appel-
lant had raised the matter in his clemency response to the convening author-
ity.” Id. The CAAF returned Appellant’s record of trial “to the Judge Advocate
General of the Air Force for further review under Article 66, Uniform Code of
Military Justice,
10 U.S.C. § 866.”
Id. This is that review.
After his case was again docketed with this court, Appellant identified
three assignments of error: (1) the conditions of his post-trial confinement ren-
der his sentence inappropriately severe, warranting sentence appropriateness
relief; (2) he was entitled to a unanimous verdict at trial; and (3) the conditions
of his post-trial confinement represented cruel and unusual punishment, war-
ranting sentence relief.4 Having considered the additional information about
Appellant’s post-trial confinement conditions, we conclude that relief is not
warranted under the first assignment of error.
3 The CAAF granted an additional issue unrelated to this remand.
4 Appellant personally raised issues (2) and (3) pursuant to United States v. Grostefon,
12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). Appellant raised issue (2) for the first time after his case
was remanded for further review; he did not raise it at trial or earlier on appeal to this
court. We addressed issue (3) in our previous opinion, and find no cause to alter our
conclusions. We find issues (2) and (3) do not warrant further discussion or relief. See
United States v. Matias,
25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A. 1987).
3
United States v. Johnson, No. ACM 39676 (rem)
II. DISCUSSION
In Johnson, this court noted that “[a]lthough we have great discretion to
determine whether a sentence is appropriate, we have no authority to grant
mercy.” Unpub. op. at *56 (citing United States v. Nerad,
69 M.J. 138, 146
(C.A.A.F. 2010)). We added the following footnote:
Although we exercise our authority to consider outside-the-rec-
ord matters to determine if Appellant’s sentence is correct in law
under Article 55, UCMJ, and the Eighth Amendment, see United
States v. Erby,
54 M.J. 476, 478 (C.A.A.F. 2001), we are pre-
cluded from considering additional information about those con-
ditions that Appellant presents in his post-trial statement of
facts to determine if his sentence is appropriate and “should be
approved” as part of our Article 66(c), UCMJ, review. See United
States v. Jessie, 79 M.J 437, 441 (C.A.A.F. 2020).
Johnson, unpub. op. at *56 n.12. The CAAF found we erred by not considering
this additional information in our sentence-appropriateness review because
“Appellant had raised the matter in his clemency response to the convening
authority.” Johnson, 81 M.J. at 452; see also United States v. Willman,
81 M.J.
355, 359–60 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (finding that outside-the-record declarations
about post-trial confinement conditions may be considered in an Article 66(c),
UCMJ, sentence appropriateness review when an appellant raised the issue to
the convening authority during clemency).
We consider all of Appellant’s assertions regarding post-trial confinement
conditions and whether relief is warranted under Article 66(c), UCMJ, for sen-
tence appropriateness. Having reviewed all matters presented on this issue,
including all post-trial declarations submitted to this court, we find Appellant’s
sentence was not rendered inappropriately severe by the conditions of his post-
trial confinement. Relief is not warranted; the sentence is appropriate and
should be approved.
III. CONCLUSION
In our previous decision, we affirmed the findings of guilty; the CAAF af-
firmed our decision as to findings. On remand, the sentence is correct in law
and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appel-
lant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Ac-
cordingly, the sentence is AFFIRMED.
MEGINLEY, Judge (dissenting in part and in the result):
4
United States v. Johnson, No. ACM 39676 (rem)
I concur with the majority’s opinion in footnote four, supra, with respect to
Appellant’s second assignment of error.
As this opinion notes, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF)
opined that in our sentence appropriateness review, this court erred in “failing
to consider additional information about Appellant’s post-trial confinement
conditions even though Appellant had raised the matter in his clemency re-
sponse to the convening authority.” United States v. Johnson,
81 M.J. 451, 452
(C.A.A.F. 2021) (mem.). The CAAF returned this case to our court to consider
whether Appellant’s assertions regarding post-trial confinement conditions
warrant relief under our Article 66(c), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 866(c), review for
sentence appropriateness.
Id. In light of this directive, and now taking into
consideration the additional information Appellant provided about his post-
trial confinement conditions after he submitted clemency, along with recent
developments discussed in more detail below, I find it is worth reevaluating
Appellant’s third assignment of error: that the conditions of his post-trial con-
finement represented cruel and unusual punishment.
Since my delivering the opinion of the court in United States v. Johnson,
No. ACM 39676,
2020 CCA LEXIS 364 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 16 Oct. 2020) (un-
pub. op.), rev’d and remanded in part,
81 M.J. 451 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (mem.),
three opinions have been released by this court that have led to me to question
whether Appellant suffered cruel and unusual punishment, and subsequently,
whether he is entitled to any sentence relief. See United States v. Pullings, No.
ACM 39948,
2021 CCA LEXIS 648 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 30 Nov. 2021) (unpub.
op.), rev. denied, No. 22-0123,
2022 CAAF LEXIS 165 (C.A.A.F.
2 Mar. 2022),
then rev. granted, No. 22-0123,
2022 CAAF LEXIS 395 (C.A.A.F. 26 May 2022);
United States v. Merritt, No. ACM 39754,
2021 CCA LEXIS 61 (A.F. Ct. Crim.
App. 11 Feb. 2021) (unpub. op.), rev. denied,
2021 CAAF LEXIS 731 (C.A.A.F.
9 Aug. 2021); United States v. Citsay, No. ACM 39712,
2020 CCA LEXIS 453
(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 18 Dec. 2020) (unpub. op.), rev. denied,
2021 CAAF LEXIS
331 (C.A.A.F. 13 Apr. 2021).
In Johnson, we addressed the various issues Appellant raised regarding
the conditions he faced at Lowndes County Jail (LCJ); along with the response
provided by Captain JC, the jail administrator at the LCJ; and Master Ser-
geant GB, Appellant’s first sergeant. Unpub. op. at *54–55. In that same opin-
ion, this court also noted a then-recent case involving LCJ, United States v.
O’Bryan, No. ACM 39602,
2020 CCA LEXIS 211 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 24 Jun.
2020) (unpub. op.), rev. denied, No. 20-0296,
2020 CAAF LEXIS 438 (C.A.A.F.
11 Aug. 2020), a case where that appellant made similar claims against the
facility. Nonetheless, because Appellant failed “to raise his issues to prison of-
ficials or his command” under Article 138, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 938, we found
5
United States v. Johnson, No. ACM 39676 (rem)
he had failed to show “deliberate indifference by the [LCJ].” Johnson, unpub.
op. at *54–55.
A few months after Johnson, I penned a dissent in Merritt that questioned
the reasonableness of dismissing allegations of cruel or unusual conditions of
post-trial confinement simply because an appellant failed to file an Article 138,
UCMJ, complaint with his or her leadership, a factor to be considered under
United States v. Lovett,
63 M.J. 211, 215 (C.A.A.F. 2006). See Merritt, unpub.
op. at *26–43 (Meginley, J., dissenting in part and in the result). Specifically,
I wrote that
[u]nder the current state of the law, even if a confinee is able to
prove the first factor under Lovett [that an appellant must show
an objectively, sufficiently serious act or omission resulting in
the denial of necessities], it is a rare case where a confinee will
be able to prove the state of mind of prisons officials and delib-
erate indifference.
Id. at *31.
Following Johnson, this court has written on two additional cases involving
LCJ: Pullings and Citsay. In both cases, this court chose not to grant relief to
those appellants. Yet, earlier this year, our superior court granted review of
our decision in Pullings on the following issues:
I. In addition to prison officials, can the decisions of military per-
sonnel satisfy the “Deliberate Indifference” aspect of cruel and
unusual punishment test when they repeatedly send military in-
mates to a local civilian confinement center with a history of in-
humane living conditions for inmates?
II. Additionally or alternatively, did Appellant suffer cruel and
unusual punishment for 247 days and nights at Lowndes County
Jail?
Pullings, 2022 CAAF LEXIS at 395.
I now raise the same questions in Appellant’s case as posed by the CAAF
above. I cannot determine whether Appellant is entitled to relief under the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution1 or Article 55, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 855, or if his sentence is appropriate under Article 66(c), UCMJ,
without knowing the answer to these questions. I now believe a post-trial evi-
dentiary hearing is required to resolve any factual disputes between Appel-
lant’s clemency and post-clemency matters and the declarations submitted by
the Government, particularly Captain JC’s affidavit. See United States v. Ginn,
1 U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.
6
United States v. Johnson, No. ACM 39676 (rem)
47 M.J. 236, 248 (C.A.A.F. 1997); United States v. DuBay,
37 C.M.R. 411, 413
(C.M.A. 1967). To the degree that such a hearing is found to be impractical, as
it has been three and half years since Appellant’s trial, I would grant Appellant
relief under Article 66(c), UCMJ.2
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
2 As for whether Air Force officials have exhibited “deliberate indifference” on civilian
confinement matters arising from Moody Air Force Base (AFB) cases, it is worth noting
that this court has previously addressed other cases of confinement conditions of Air-
men from Moody AFB at local confinement facilities and/or claims of cruel and unusual
punishment. See, e.g., United States v. Burke, No. ACM S32137,
2014 CCA LEXIS 834
(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 3 Nov. 2014) (unpub. op.); United States v. Luckado, No. ACM
37962,
2013 CCA LEXIS 741 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1 Aug. 2013) (unpub. op); United
States v. Wilson, No. ACM 37897,
2012 CCA LEXIS 385 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 12 Oct.
2012) (per curiam) (unpub. op.); United States v. Simmons, No. ACM 37967,
2012 CCA
LEXIS 230 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 27 Jun. 2012) (unpub. op.); United States v. Branch,
No. ACM S31691,
2010 CCA LEXIS 403 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 13 Dec. 2010) (per curiam)
(unpub. op.); United States v. Lucas, No. ACM 37363,
2009 CCA LEXIS 479 (A.F. Ct.
Crim. App. 28 Dec. 2009) (unpub. op.); United States v. Melson, No. ACM 36523,
2007
CCA LEXIS 372 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 14 Sep. 2007) (per curiam) (unpub. op.). Most of
these cases also involve the nearby Cook County Jail, Cook County, Georgia. No relief
was granted to any of these appellants for cruel and unusual punishment, although
the appellant in Melson was granted relief for his illegal pretrial punishment.
7
