Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Daionte Scott.
​
A military judge convicted the Appellant of two aggravated assaults on a child and sentenced him to 21 months, RiR, a DD, and a reprimand. Appellant’s issue is sentence appropriateness.

Appellant contends that his sentence is inappropriately severe in light of the mitigating evidence that he presented regarding his own father’s absence while he was child. Specifically, Appellant argues that his father’s absence left him with “a permanent scar” that caused him to engage in inappropriate behavior when distressed. Additionally, Appellant contends that he did not seek mental health treatment due to the culture in the military of not wanting to appear weak. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and find that no relief is warranted.
. . . 
Appellant intentionally assaulted his infant son on multiple occasions. Appellant admitted to squeezing RS with enough force to break five of his ribs and to fracturing his son’s left arm a couple of weeks later. Appellant’s actions caused RS significant pain and made it uncomfortable for him to breathe. Appellant’s criminal behavior showed a gross disregard towards the safety of his infant son. We also note that Appellant cited no legal precedent or authority to support his contention that his sentence is inappropriately severe. Appellant’s argument and analysis on appeal is similar to his unsworn statements and matters he provided to the convening authority during clemency. “While these matters are appropriate considerations in clemency, they do not show that the appellant’s sentence is inappropriately severe.” United States v. Aguilar, 70 M.J. 563, 567 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2011).