U.S. v. Villareal, 52 M.J. 27

Trial Stages: Merits: Pretrial Agreements

1. even though appellant was placed in a different position by the convening authority’s withdrawal from a pretrial agreement, this is not the type of legal prejudice that would entitle appellant to relief
2. an accused does not have a constitutional right to plead guilty, and the discretion to plea bargain is a policy and leadership decision; however, under certain circumstances, when an accused has relied upon a pretrial agreement and performed some affirmative act or omission equating to detrimental reliance, specific performance of that pretrial agreement will be ordered
3. there was no detrimental reliance on pretrial agreement such as would justify ordering specific performance of that agreement where appellant knew the convening authority withdrew form the agreement before appellant had the opportunity to rely on the agreement in any manner that would legally prejudice his right to a fair trial

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Authentication of Record of Trial

1. failure to include military judge’s special findings on unlawful command influence motion in the record of trial did not prejudice appellant at action as the verbatim record was not misleading or so incomplete as to prevent meaningful review, nor was appellant prejudiced during initial appellate review as he was in possession of those findings and on notice as to what they were at the time

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. failure to raise a multiplicity for findings motion at trial waives that issue, absent plain error
2. where appellant failed to raise multiplicity for findings motion at trial, there was no plain error in considering solicitation to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice as separate offenses for findings where it was not plain on its face that the two offenses were multiplicious for findings and there was no evidence to suggest that the members failed to follow an instruction to consider the offenses as one for sentencing

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. an allegation of unlawful command influence is reviewed de novo; findings of fact made in conjunction with a ruling on a motion regarding unlawful commend influence are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard

Miscellaneous Matters: Command Influence: Generally

1. where a subordinate convening authority initiated contact with his friend, who was acting as the next superior convening authority, and sought advice on potentially withdrawing from a previously executed pretrial agreement, the contact was not viewed as unlawful command influence
2. any appearance of unlawful command influence created by a subordinate convening authority initiating contact with his friend, who was acting as the next superior convening authority, was cured by transfer of the case to a new convening authority for separate consideration and action

Miscellaneous Matters: Multiplicity and Lesser Included Offenses: Multiplicity

1. failure to raise a multiplicity for findings motion at trial waives that issue, absent plain error
2. where appellant failed to raise multiplicity for findings motion at trial, there was no plain error in considering solicitation to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice as separate offenses for findings where it was not plain on its face that the two offenses were multiplicious for findings and there was no evidence to suggest that the members failed to follow an instruction to consider the offenses as one for sentencing