## Facts

- Capt. Holly Baldwin, U.S. Army, was tried by general court-martial before an officer-only panel for larceny, mail tampering, and obstruction of justice.
- During the period surrounding her trial, Baldwin and other officers (including panel members) attended mandatory command meetings addressing sentencing philosophy.
- Baldwin later asserted that at a first meeting the command stated court-martial sentences were “too lenient,” officers should be punished more harshly than enlisted personnel, and the minimum court-martial sentence should be one year.
- On the last day of Baldwin’s court-martial, before sentencing, a second mandatory command meeting delayed the proceedings and again emphasized that sentences were too lenient.
- After reconvening, the panel convicted Baldwin and sentenced her to dismissal, one year confinement, and total forfeitures; the convening authority approved the sentence.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) affirmed on direct review.
- About nine months later, Baldwin submitted a post-trial statement to ACCA detailing the meetings and alleging unlawful command influence (UCI) affecting sentencing.
- ACCA summarily affirmed again without ordering a post-trial fact-finding hearing or issuing a reasoned written resolution of the UCI claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Baldwin’s post-trial submission provided “some evidence” that mandatory command meetings attended by panel members during her court-martial created unlawful command influence, at least as to sentencing.
2. Whether ACCA erred by disposing of the UCI claim by summary affirmance without further fact-finding or an explained determination that the proffer failed to raise UCI.

## Decision

- CAAF held Baldwin’s post-trial proffer raised a sufficient factual issue to trigger further inquiry into unlawful command influence.
- CAAF concluded ACCA’s summary affirmance was inadequate in light of the detailed allegation and the need for an adequate record to resolve UCI.
- CAAF set aside ACCA’s decision and remanded for a DuBay fact-finding hearing or other appropriate proceedings to determine what occurred and whether UCI affected the sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Article 37, UCMJ prohibits commanders from using, or appearing to use, command authority to influence court-martial findings or sentence.
- To raise UCI, the defense must present “some evidence” that, if true, would constitute UCI or create an appearance of unfairness.
- Once the defense meets that threshold, the Government bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the predicate facts did not occur, did not amount to UCI, or did not prejudice the proceedings.
- When a colorable UCI claim is presented post-trial, appellate courts must ensure the record is developed enough to resolve it; substantial UCI allegations generally require fact-finding or a reasoned explanation for rejection.

## Conclusion

CAAF determined that Baldwin’s detailed post-trial allegations about mandatory command sentencing messages delivered to officers who sat as panel members raised a colorable UCI issue, making summary affirmance improper and requiring remand for structured fact-finding on whether the sentencing process was affected.


United States v. Baldwin, 54 M.J. 308 (C.A.A.F. 2001)