U.S. v. Hunter, 65 M.J. 399

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. military law imposes an independent obligation on the military judge to ensure that the accused understands what he gives up because of his plea and the accused’s consent to do so must be ascertained; the accused must know and understand not only the PTA’s impact on the charges and specifications which bear on the plea, but also other terms of the agreement, including consequences of future misconduct or waiver of various rights; reflecting these concerns, RCM 910(f)(4) requires that where a plea agreement exists, the military judge shall inquire to ensure: (A) that the accused understands the agreement; and (B) that the parties agree to the terms of the agreement; this inquiry is part and parcel of the providence of an accused’s plea, and necessary to ensure that an accused is making a fully informed decision as to whether or not to plead guilty; an inquiry that falls short of these requirements and fails to ensure the accused understands the terms of the agreement is error

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. military law imposes an independent obligation on the military judge to ensure that the accused understands what he gives up because of his plea and the accused’s consent to do so must be ascertained; the accused must know and understand not only the PTA’s impact on the charges and specifications which bear on the plea, but also other terms of the agreement, including consequences of future misconduct or waiver of various rights; reflecting these concerns, RCM 910(f)(4) requires that where a plea agreement exists, the military judge shall inquire to ensure: (A) that the accused understands the agreement; and (B) that the parties agree to the terms of the agreement; this inquiry is part and parcel of the providence of an accused’s plea, and necessary to ensure that an accused is making a fully informed decision as to whether or not to plead guilty; an inquiry that falls short of these requirements and fails to ensure the accused understands the terms of the agreement is error

Trial Stages: Merits: Pretrial Agreements

1. as long as the procedural protections set forth in RCM 1109 are either followed or waived, a convening authority may withdraw before action from a PTA when the accused violates conditions established pursuant to RCM 705(c)(2)(D)
2. when read together, RCM 705(c)(2)(D) and RCM 1109 do permit misconduct that occurred prior to the convening authority’s action to be used as the basis for a withdrawal from the confinement limitation of a PTA
3. RCM 705(c)(2)(D)’s reference to RCM 1109 requires that the procedural protections for a suspension and vacation proceeding under RCM 1109 be extended to withdrawal from sentence limitations of a PTA based on allegations of misconduct
4. while RCM 705(c)(2)(D) could have been drafted more precisely, the plain import of its reference to RCM 1109 is to require a convening authority to comply with the RCM 1109 procedural protections before the benefit of a PTA can be withdrawn
5. in this case, the misconduct provision of appellant’s PTA complied with RCM 705, and the convening authority did not violate the PTA by withdrawing from a portion of the sentencing limitation in light of appellant’s post-trial misconduct where appellant waived the procedural protections to which he was otherwise entitled under RCM 1109
6. military law imposes an independent obligation on the military judge to ensure that the accused understands what he gives up because of his plea and the accused’s consent to do so must be ascertained; the accused must know and understand not only the PTA’s impact on the charges and specifications which bear on the plea, but also other terms of the agreement, including consequences of future misconduct or waiver of various rights; reflecting these concerns, RCM 910(f)(4) requires that where a plea agreement exists, the military judge shall inquire to ensure: (A) that the accused understands the agreement; and (B) that the parties agree to the terms of the agreement; this inquiry is part and parcel of the providence of an accused’s plea, and necessary to ensure that an accused is making a fully informed decision as to whether or not to plead guilty; an inquiry that falls short of these requirements and fails to ensure the accused understands the terms of the agreement is error
7. although the military judge legally erred in failing to explain the pretrial misconduct provision of the PTA to appellant prior to accepting his guilty plea, despite the error, appellant was not entitled to relief because he failed to establish the material prejudice to a substantial right required under Article 59(a), UCMJ; there is no evidence that appellant misunderstood the meaning and effect of the misconduct provision within his PTA or that his understanding of it prejudiced his ability to make a fully informed decision to plead guilty

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. not every error constitutes a material prejudice to a substantial right warranting relief under Article 59(a), UCMJ
2. where there is no evidence or representation before an appellate court that appellant misunderstood the terms of his agreement, that the operation of any term was frustrated, or that his participation in the agreement was anything other than wholly voluntary, the court will not find prejudice
3. although the military judge legally erred in failing to explain the pretrial misconduct provision of the PTA to appellant prior to accepting his guilty plea, despite the error, appellant was not entitled to relief because he failed to establish the material prejudice to a substantial right required under Article 59(a), UCMJ; there is no evidence that appellant misunderstood the meaning and effect of the misconduct provision within his PTA or that his understanding of it prejudiced his ability to make a fully informed decision to plead guilty

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

1. the interpretation of provisions of the RCM, and whether a term in a PTA violates the RCM, are questions of law that an appellate court reviews de novo; ordinary rules of statutory construction apply in interpreting the RCM
2. when an appellate court finds an error in the providence of a plea, it will reject the plea only where the appellant demonstrates a material prejudice to a substantial right

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

1. ordinary rules of statutory construction apply in interpreting the RCM

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Generally

1. ordinary rules of statutory construction apply in interpreting the RCM