U.S. v. Williams, 55 M.J. 302

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Of Trial Court

1. a court-martial retains jurisdiction over a case from the point of referral through authentication of the record by the military judge, except when the convening authority withdraws the charges from the court-martial under RCM 604(a); and unless those charges have been withdrawn for an improper reason, the convening authority may re-refer the withdrawn charges to a different court-martial

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Referral

1. when a specific general court-martial convening authority retired and a superior general court-martial convening authority withdrew authority to convene general courts-martial from the subordinate’s successor, the superior general court-martial convening authority thereafter acted as a successor convening authority and had ample authority to withdraw previously referred charges and re-refer them to a different general court-martial convening order
2. although it is preferable for a convening authority to indicate his or her intent expressly, it is reasonable to presume that re-referral of a charge by a proper convening authority implies a decision to withdraw that charge from a prior referral
3. under the circumstances of this case, the convening authority’s intent to withdraw previously referred charges was implicit in his re-referral of those charges to a different general court-martial convening order; any administrative deficiency in memorializing this process was insubstantial and did not deprive the court-martial of jurisdiction

Trial Stages: Merits: Pretrial Agreements

1. if an accused does not receive the benefit of the bargain reflected in the negotiated pretrial agreement, the pleas will be treated as improvident, the findings will be set aside, and the accused will be subject to retrial
2. where appellant sought in his pretrial agreement to protect his family against potential forfeitures, he gained the benefit of that protection in that no forfeitures were adjudged and there was no evidence that automatic forfeitures were collected; there were no representations as to entitlement to pay beyond his term of service which would serve to improvidence the plea

Miscellaneous Matters: Speedy Trial: Post-Trial

1. an unreasonable delay in the post-trial review process will be tested for prejudice; delay will not be tolerated if there is any indication that appellant was prejudiced as a result
2. even though action was taken 753 days after completion of trial, appellant was not prejudiced by any delay where appellant received his bargained-for protection against potential forfeitures so long as he was entitled to pay