The appellate timeline in the military justice system depends on the type of court-martial and the sentence imposed. General court-martial convictions involving a punitive discharge or confinement of a year or more are subject to automatic review by the appropriate Service Court of Criminal Appeals, and that review proceeds without any filing deadline being placed on the accused. Other types of convictions and sentences follow different review pathways with their own procedural requirements.
Understanding which review pathway applies to a specific case, and what the accused must do to preserve issues for appeal, is essential from the moment of conviction and sentencing. Some appellate issues are preserved automatically by the trial record, while others require specific objections or motions to have been made at trial. Defense attorneys who practice at the trial level must build the appellate record as they go, because an issue that was not preserved at trial faces a far more difficult standard of review when raised for the first time on appeal.
The Automatic Review Process for General Court-Martial Convictions
Every general court-martial conviction that includes a punitive discharge or confinement of one year or more is subject to mandatory review by the appropriate Service Court of Criminal Appeals, without any filing requirement by the accused. This automatic review is a feature of the military justice system that has no direct civilian analogue. In civilian federal courts, the defendant must file a notice of appeal to initiate appellate review. In the military, the court reviews the conviction regardless of whether the accused affirmatively requests it.
The scope of the automatic review is comprehensive. The Service Court of Criminal Appeals, sometimes called the Court of Military Review in older cases, conducts a de novo review of both the factual sufficiency and the legal sufficiency of the findings and sentence. This means the court can independently evaluate whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, not merely whether the trial proceeded without legal error. A court that concludes the evidence was legally insufficient can set aside the findings entirely, and a court that finds the sentence excessive can reduce it to a level it determines is appropriate.
How the Review Timeline Works for Different Types of Court-Martial Convictions
Special court-martial convictions and summary court-martial convictions follow different review pathways than general courts-martial. Summary court-martial convictions are reviewed within the command and are not subject to automatic review by a service court. Special court-martial convictions are reviewed at the convening authority level and may be appealed to the Service Court of Criminal Appeals under the conditions specified in Article 66 of the UCMJ, as amended by the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act.
For convictions subject to the automatic review process, the service court’s action constitutes the first level of appellate review. After the service court acts, the accused may petition the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for further review. CAAF has discretionary jurisdiction over most cases and grants review where the case presents a significant question of law or where the interests of justice require it. For the most serious cases, further review to the United States Supreme Court by petition for certiorari is available.
How the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Fits Into the Process
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is the highest military appellate court and is a civilian court in the sense that its judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, are civilians, and serve fixed terms. CAAF reviews decisions of the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals and exercises discretionary jurisdiction over most cases through a petition process analogous to federal certiorari.
Cases in which the judge advocate general certifies an issue, where a service court has granted relief not requested by the government, or where the accused faces a significant sentence are subject to CAAF review under different procedures. CAAF decisions are final within the military justice system and are subject only to Supreme Court certiorari review. Defense counsel who reach CAAF are arguing before a court that takes a relatively small number of cases each year and that has shaped the development of military constitutional law through its decisions.
What Happens If an Appeal Deadline Is Missed
For cases subject to automatic review, there is no deadline for the accused to affirmatively invoke appellate review because the review proceeds automatically. However, for cases where the accused must take affirmative steps to preserve or pursue appellate rights, including the filing of petitions to CAAF or the taking of specific post-trial actions at the convening authority level, missed deadlines can result in forfeiture of rights.
The most common post-trial deadline is the period within which the accused must submit matters for the convening authority’s consideration under the post-trial processing requirements. This deadline, which is typically ten days after the accused is served with the record of trial, must be met or the right to submit matters is forfeited absent good cause. Defense counsel must track this deadline carefully and ensure that any matters in mitigation, clemency, or post-trial relief are submitted within the required period.
The Grounds That Support a Successful Appeal
Successful military appeals typically involve legal errors that were preserved at trial and that affected the outcome, insufficient evidence to support one or more findings, errors in instructions to the panel that prejudiced the accused, constitutional violations including unlawful search and seizure, command influence, or Sixth Amendment right to counsel violations, or sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the offense. The scope of military appellate review, which includes factual sufficiency, is broader than civilian federal appellate review, creating more avenues for relief.
Defense attorneys who are transitioning a case from trial to appeal should conduct a comprehensive review of the trial record to identify every potential error and to assess which errors are preserved, which can be raised as plain error, and which are of sufficient magnitude to produce a reasonable likelihood of different outcome on appeal. A well-constructed appellate brief identifies the strongest issues, addresses the applicable standard of review for each, and presents the argument that the errors cumulatively or individually require reversal of the findings or modification of the sentence.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.