21 August 2007

Sentence Rehearing

The NMCCA returned the appellant’s case for a rehearing on the sentence. The appellant claims that the military judge erred in not finding that the Government’s failure to convene the rehearing within 120 days violated R.C.M. 707. The Government comes up with a rather brazen defense— “the novel procedures involved in accomplishing a sentence-only rehearing after more than 5 1/2 years since the original trial date, and not due to bad faith or neglect on their part.” Oh, so all the delays in the original case were not due to neglect. And what exactly is novel about a rehearing on sentence. It’s not as if they have to go looking for the record of trial. It was returned with the order to hold a rehearing. In defense of the Government, they did as the Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity for an extension and it was granted. Citing R.C.M. 707(c)(1), the NMCCA says that was error. Because the charge was still referred, the Government should have asked the military judge for the extension. That’s what the rule says, but I wonder if it was really meant to apply to rehearings when you have to go find the accused and bring him back on active duty etc.

Regardless, the NMCCA determines no relief is necessary for this dirtbag—he took nude photos of an 18-month old child. So his BCD stands. Not much of a sentence for a pervert.

United States v. Sorenson, NMCCA 200001969 (N.M.C.C.A. Aug. 9, 2007).


Anonymous said...

As a father of four, I have to admit to have taken a few shots of my babies in the buff. After all, they like to run around like that quite often, no matter how hard you try to keep them in their diapers! And then they do the darndest things...but since I have no idea what this person did (having not
read the case yet), and in what manner these photos were taken, I have to assume there was more going on there than simply preserving family memories to embarrass the kid with when they get older (and have brought a date over, for instance...)

I only comment since at first blush the posting seemed to implicate that anybody that had taken a photo of a baby sans clothes would be a pervert... and while one can definitely be considered a pervert for plenty of things, perhaps there are non-perverted reasons for having pictures of nude babies, such as those I mentioned. Of course, these days, who knows.

Maybe my parents were closet pervs and I oughta be upset about my nekkid baby pics....

Sacramentum said...

The opinion did not detail the accused's conduct other than to say that the photos were of the child in provocative poses.