After a Court-Martial Conviction: Post-Trial Review and the Appeals Path

Published Read 13 min read

On this page

The old picture of military justice ended with a commander reviewing a conviction and deciding whether to let it stand. Which cases that is still true of now depends on one provision, and the answer splits in two. For courts-martial described in Article 60a(a)(2), the convening authority may not act on the findings at all and has only a narrow residual power over the sentence. For courts-martial outside that list, and for every summary court-martial, Article 60b preserves specified powers that do reach the findings. What replaced the old arrangement is a document the judge enters, that two-lane convening-authority stage, and a court structure that runs from a service appellate court to a civilian-staffed federal court and, in some cases, to the Supreme Court.

This page follows that path in the Code’s order: what is created at the end of trial, what a convening authority may and may not do, and the three levels of review with the conditions attached to each.

It does not tell anyone what to do about a conviction. Deadlines and options in a particular case are questions for counsel.

What the end of trial produces

Article 60 requires a document, names it, and lists what it must contain.

“(a) Statement of Trial Results.—(1) The military judge of a general or special court-martial shall enter into the record of trial a document entitled ‘Statement of Trial Results’, which shall set forth— (A) each plea and finding; (B) the sentence, if any; and (C) such other information as the President may prescribe by regulation. (2) Copies of the Statement of Trial Results shall be provided promptly to the convening authority, the accused, and any victim of the offense.”

Source: 10 U.S.C. 860 (Article 60), subsection (a).

Three recipients, named in the statute: the convening authority, the accused, and any victim of the offense. The document is entered by the judge, not prepared by the command.

Article 60(b) then keeps post-trial litigation with the judge: in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President, the military judge “shall address all post-trial motions and other post-trial matters” that may affect a plea, a finding, the sentence, the Statement of Trial Results, the record, or any post-trial action by the convening authority.

What the convening authority may no longer do, and in which cases

Article 60a states the limit before it states the power, and the first clause is the one that changed military justice.

“(a) In General.—(1) The convening authority of a general or special court-martial described in paragraph (2)— (A) may act on the sentence of the court-martial only as provided in subsection (b), (c), or (d); and (B) may not act on the findings of the court-martial.”

Source: 10 U.S.C. 860a (Article 60a), subsection (a)(1).

Read the opening words before the prohibition. The subsection begins “The convening authority of a general or special court-martial described in paragraph (2)“, and that qualifier does the work. Where paragraph (2) applies, a conviction is not the commander’s to set aside and whatever remains is limited to the sentence. Where it does not apply, a different article governs and the answer changes.

Paragraph (2) lists four categories, and the fourth is by offense rather than by threshold:

“(2) The courts-martial referred to in paragraph (1) are the following: (A) A general or special court-martial in which the maximum sentence of confinement established under subsection (a) of section 856 of this title (article 56) for any offense of which the accused is found guilty is more than two years. (B) A general or special court-martial in which the total of the sentences of confinement imposed, running consecutively, is more than six months. (C) A general or special court-martial in which the sentence imposed includes a dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad-conduct discharge. (D) A general or special court-martial in which the accused is found guilty of a violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 920 of this title (article 120), section 920b of this title (article 120b), or such other offense as the Secretary of Defense may specify by regulation.”

Source: 10 U.S.C. 860a (Article 60a), subsection (a)(2).

So three of the four are thresholds and the fourth is a named-offense category that the Secretary of Defense may extend by regulation. A page that lists only the thresholds has left out the category that can grow without an Act of Congress.

The other lane: Article 60b

Everything above is Article 60a. Courts-martial outside paragraph (2), and every summary court-martial, are governed by Article 60b, and its powers are not confined to the sentence.

“(a) In General.—(1) In a court-martial not specified in section 860a(a)(2) of this title (article 60a(a)(2)), the convening authority may— (A) dismiss any charge or specification by setting aside the finding of guilty; (B) change a finding of guilty to a charge or specification to a finding of guilty to a lesser included offense; (C) disapprove the findings and the sentence and dismiss the charges and specifications; (D) disapprove the findings and the sentence and order a rehearing as to the findings and the sentence; (E) disapprove, commute, or suspend the sentence, in whole or in part; or (F) disapprove the sentence and order a rehearing as to the sentence.”

Source: 10 U.S.C. 860b (Article 60b), subsection (a)(1).

Four of those six reach the findings. Setting aside a finding of guilty, reducing it to a lesser included offense, disapproving the findings and dismissing, and disapproving the findings and ordering a rehearing are all available in this lane. So the proposition that a convening authority can never touch findings is not what the Code says; it is what Article 60a says about the cases Article 60a covers.

Article 60b(b) then limits rehearings. The convening authority may not order one as to the findings “if there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the findings”, and may not order one to reconsider a finding of not guilty or a ruling amounting to one.

Two lanes, one test. Which lane a case is in is decided by Article 60a(a)(2), and nothing else on this page changes that.

Review inside the service: the Courts of Criminal Appeals

Article 66 establishes a court in each service and sets its composition.

“(a) Courts of Criminal Appeals.—(1) In general.—Each Judge Advocate General shall establish a Court of Criminal Appeals which shall be composed of one or more panels, and each such panel shall be composed of not less than three appellate military judges.”

Source: 10 U.S.C. 866 (Article 66), subsection (a)(1).

Two features are worth noting. A panel is not fewer than three appellate military judges, and a panel decision “may be reconsidered by the court sitting as a whole” under the court’s rules.

And the bench is not necessarily uniformed: appellate military judges “may be commissioned officers or civilians”, each of whom must be a member of a Federal or State high-court bar and certified by the Judge Advocate General as qualified “by reason of education, training, experience, and judicial temperament”.

Review outside the services: the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Article 67 sets three routes into the next court, and only one of them belongs to the accused.

“(a) The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces shall review the record in— (1) all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a Court of Criminal Appeals, extends to death; (2) all cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals which the Judge Advocate General, after appropriate notification to the other Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, orders sent to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review; and (3) all cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has granted a review.”

Source: 10 U.S.C. 867 (Article 67), subsection (a).

Route (1) is automatic and applies to affirmed death sentences. Route (2) is certification by a Judge Advocate General. Route (3) is the accused’s petition, and it requires good cause shown and a grant; it is discretionary, not an appeal as of right.

The clock on route (3) is in subsection (b): the accused may petition “within 60 days” from the earlier of the date of notification of the lower court’s decision or, where applicable, a date fixed by the article’s service provisions.

What moves the case upward: Article 65

Nothing above reaches an appellate court by itself. Article 65 is the transmittal provision, and it sorts cases by sentence before anything else happens.

“If the judgment includes a sentence of death, dismissal of a commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman, dishonorable discharge or bad-conduct discharge, or confinement for 2 years or more, the Judge Advocate General shall forward— (A) the record of trial to the Court of Criminal Appeals for review under section 866(b)(3) of this title (article 66(b)(3)); and (B) a copy of the record of trial to an appellate defense counsel who shall be detailed to review the case and, upon request of the accused, to represent the accused before the Court of Criminal Appeals.”

Source: 10 U.S.C. 865 (Article 65), subsection (b)(1). Subparagraph (B) was added by Pub. L. 118–159, div. A, title V, §563, Dec. 23, 2024.

Three things are in that sentence, and the third is recent.

The threshold is in the sentence, not in the offense. Death, dismissal of an officer or cadet or midshipman, a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, or confinement for two years or more. A conviction below all of those does not travel this route.

Forwarding is mandatory. The Judge Advocate General “shall forward”; this is not a discretionary referral.

Counsel is detailed without being asked. Subparagraph (B) was added on 23 December 2024, and it splits the old arrangement in two: an appellate defense counsel “shall be detailed to review the case” whether or not the accused asks, and representation before the court then follows “upon request of the accused”. Review of the case is automatic; appearing for the accused is not. A description of Article 65 written before that date has the counsel arriving only on request.

Paragraph (2) covers cases that are eligible for direct appeal rather than routed automatically, and there the trigger is the accused’s own initiative: the Judge Advocate General acts “upon written request of the accused”. That phrase was moved to the front of the paragraph by the same 2024 Act, which is a drafting change with a practical edge: one written request now governs the paragraph instead of separate requests attaching to separate clauses.

Subsection (d) then provides the fallback. Where a case is not eligible for direct appeal, review is performed by a judge advocate and the decision must be in writing, addressing jurisdiction over the accused and the offense, whether the charges state an offense, the legality of the sentence, and any allegation of error the accused submitted in writing.

Review by the Judge Advocate General under Article 69

Article 69 is a separate channel from the Article 65(d) review just described, and keeping the two apart matters. Article 65(d) is the review that happens because a case was not eligible for direct appeal. Article 69 operates “[u]pon application by the accused or receipt of the record” under the conditions that article sets, and it is a distinct statutory route with its own grounds.

So there are three ways a conviction gets looked at again without the accused reaching a Court of Criminal Appeals on his own motion: the mandatory transmittal under Article 65(b)(1), the written review under Article 65(d), and the Article 69 channel. Not every conviction goes to a Court of Criminal Appeals, and the cases that do not are not left without a mechanism.

Where the ladder ends: the Supreme Court

The Code does not stop at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and it says so in one sentence.

“Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces are subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari as provided in section 1259 of title 28.”

Source: 10 U.S.C. 867a (Article 67a), subsection (a).

That cross-reference does the work, so the list of eligible cases is in Title 28 rather than in the Code:

“(1) Cases reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under section 867(a)(1) of title 10. (2) Cases certified to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces by the Judge Advocate General under section 867(a)(2) of title 10. (3) Cases in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted or refused to grant a petition for review under section 867(a)(3) of title 10. (4) Cases, other than those described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection, in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted or refused to grant relief.”

Source: 28 U.S.C. 1259.

Paragraph (3) is the one worth reading twice. It covers cases in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces “granted or refused to grant” a petition for review. So a refusal at that court is not the end of the road as a matter of eligibility: the refusal itself is within the certiorari jurisdiction. Paragraph (4) then sweeps in other cases where that court granted or refused relief.

What none of this supplies is a likelihood. Certiorari is discretionary, and eligibility to petition is not a prospect of being heard.

The structure, read as a whole (Articles 60, 60a, 60b, 65, 66, 67, 67a and 69)

trial  ->  Statement of Trial Results (Art. 60, judge)
         ->  post-trial motions (Art. 60, judge)
         ->  convening authority, and which lane depends on Art. 60a(a)(2):
                inside  Art. 60a(a)(2)  ->  sentence only, no action on findings
                outside Art. 60a(a)(2)  ->  Art. 60b, findings reachable
                                            (set aside, lesser included,
                                             disapprove, rehearing)
         ->  Art. 65 transmittal, sorted by sentence:
                Art. 65(b)(1)  death / dismissal / DD / BCD / 2+ yrs
                               -> record to CCA, counsel detailed
                Art. 65(b)(2)  direct-appeal eligible, on written request
                Art. 65(d)     not eligible -> written JAG-office review
                Art. 69        separate statutory channel
         ->  Court of Criminal Appeals (Art. 66)
         ->  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (Art. 67)
                automatic for death · JAG certification · petition on good cause
         ->  Supreme Court, certiorari (Art. 67a + 28 U.S.C. 1259)
                includes cases CAAF granted OR REFUSED to review

Three things about that ladder are easy to miss. The commander’s rung was cut down to the sentence for the cases Article 60a names. Of the three routes into the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces only the death-sentence route under Article 67(a)(1) is automatic, and the accused’s own route requires good cause shown and a grant. And the rung above that one is reached by petition rather than by right, with a refusal at that court still counting as an eligible case under 28 U.S.C. 1259(3).

What this page does not decide

Any deadline in a particular case. Article 67(b) sets 60 days for a petition; other periods are set in regulations this page did not open, and how a period is computed in a case is a question for counsel.

Whether any ground of appeal exists. The Code creates courts and routes; what an appellate court may correct is a matter of its own standards.

What a conviction means for a person beyond the sentence. Those consequences are in what a court-martial conviction costs.

Where to go from here

What produced the findings under review is in inside a court-martial trial, and the official whose post-trial power was reduced is described in convening authority. Defense counsel’s post-trial role, including forwarding a brief for attachment to the record, is in the right to a military defense lawyer.

Sources

What this page did not open. The Manual for Courts-Martial was not opened, and the post-trial regulations referred to in Articles 60, 60a and 65 live there, as do the rules on what a record of trial contains. No court decision was opened, and no Supreme Court practice rule: this page states who is eligible to petition and says nothing about how such petitions fare.

Checked on 19 September 2026, and checked for currency as well as for accuracy. Every statutory provision cited on this page was traced to the current United States Code: where a provision has not been amended since the 2023 edition, that edition’s text is the current text and its amendment record was read to confirm it; where a provision was amended by Pub. L. 118–159 (23 December 2024) or Pub. L. 119–60 (18 December 2025), the current text is quoted above and the amending Act is named beside it. The two Acts’ own texts were read to establish the complete list of provisions in this chapter that they changed. This was done through the Cornell mirror of the Code and through the Acts as published by the Government Publishing Office; the House preliminary Code could not be reached from here, so no third source confirms it. No independent expert review has taken place yet, and this page says so rather than implying one.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *