Yes. When a military appellate court concludes that the original sentence was infected by improper aggravation, it has the power to fix the problem, and one of its options is to send the case back for a new sentencing proceeding. That new proceeding is called a sentence rehearing. The court does not always choose that route, because it has a second tool, sentence reassessment, that lets the court itself decide what the sentence should have been. Understanding the difference between those two paths, and how a court chooses between them, is the heart of this question.
What counts as an improper aggravator
At sentencing in a court-martial, the government may present evidence in aggravation, but only within limits. The evidence must relate to the offenses of which the accused was actually convicted, and it must fall within the categories the rules allow. Problems arise when the panel hears matter it should never have considered. Examples include evidence tied to a charge that was later dismissed or set aside, victim impact that strays beyond what the rules permit, uncharged misconduct admitted without a proper basis, or argument that invites the panel to punish the accused for something other than the convicted conduct. When that kind of error reaches the members and there is a real risk it affected the sentence, the appellate court must respond. It cannot simply leave a tainted sentence in place.
The first option: sentence reassessment
The Courts of Criminal Appeals for the services possess unusually broad authority over sentences. Under their statutory power to approve only so much of a sentence as they find correct and should be approved, they may reassess a sentence themselves rather than ordering a new hearing. The governing question, drawn from longstanding case law beginning with United States v. Sales, is whether the court can reliably determine that, absent the error, the sentencing authority would have imposed at least a certain sentence. If the court is confident of that floor, it may reduce the sentence to that level and affirm, sparing everyone a new proceeding.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces refined this analysis in United States v. Winckelmann, which set out illustrative factors a Court of Criminal Appeals should weigh. Those factors include whether there has been a dramatic change in the penalty landscape or sentencing exposure, whether the accused chose sentencing by members or by a military judge alone, whether the remaining offenses still capture the gravamen of the original misconduct, whether significant aggravating circumstances remain admissible and relevant, and whether the remaining offenses are of a type that appellate judges have the experience and familiarity to evaluate reliably. The more confident the court can be on these points, the more appropriate reassessment becomes.
The second option: a sentence rehearing
When the court cannot confidently determine what sentence would have been imposed without the improper aggravation, reassessment is inappropriate, and the proper remedy is to set aside the sentence and authorize a rehearing on sentence. At a rehearing, a new sentencing proceeding takes place. The findings of guilt remain intact, but the question of punishment is litigated again, this time without the improper aggravator, before a properly instructed sentencing authority. A key protection applies at a rehearing: the sentence adjudged generally may not exceed the sentence that was originally approved, so the accused is not exposed to a harsher outcome for having won relief on appeal.
How a court decides between the two
The choice is not arbitrary. Reassessment is favored when the improper matter was limited, when the remaining convicted conduct is serious and well defined, and when the court can say with confidence that the lawful evidence alone supported at least a particular sentence. A rehearing is the right answer when the improper aggravation was substantial or pervasive, when removing it leaves the court genuinely uncertain about what the panel would have done, or when the case turned on members whose reasoning the court cannot reconstruct. In short, the more the error clouds the appellate court’s ability to be confident, the more likely it is to order a new hearing rather than guess.
Why the distinction matters to an accused
The two remedies produce different practical outcomes. Reassessment is faster and final at the appellate level, but it caps relief at the court’s view of the appropriate floor, and the accused does not get to present a fresh sentencing case. A rehearing reopens the punishment question entirely, allowing new mitigation, new witnesses, and renewed advocacy, with the protection of the prior approved sentence as a ceiling. Defense counsel often argue for a rehearing when there is reason to believe a properly conducted proceeding would yield meaningful additional relief, and argue for favorable reassessment when the convicted conduct is minor enough that a low sentence is the only correct result.
Practical takeaways
An appellate court confronted with improper aggravators is not powerless and is not required to leave the sentence undisturbed. It must remedy the error, and ordering a new sentencing proceeding is squarely within its authority. Whether it reassesses the sentence itself under the Sales and Winckelmann framework or returns the case for a rehearing depends on how confidently the court can isolate the effect of the improper matter. Because that confidence question is contestable, and because the choice between reassessment and rehearing can change the outcome, an accused who identifies improper aggravation in the record has strong reason to press the issue with experienced military appellate counsel.
This article explains whether appellate courts can order new sentencing proceedings when the initial panel used improper aggravators. It is general legal information and not legal advice for any specific case.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.