U.S. v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Generally

1. a military judge abuses his discretion if he accepts a guilty plea without an adequate factual basis to support the plea - an area in which an appellate court affords the judge significant deference; additionally, any ruling based on an erroneous view of the law also constitutes an abuse of discretion

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. a military judge abuses his discretion if he accepts a guilty plea without an adequate factual basis to support the plea - an area in which an appellate court affords the judge significant deference; additionally, any ruling based on an erroneous view of the law also constitutes an abuse of discretion
2. during a guilty plea inquiry, the military judge is charged with determining whether there is an adequate basis in law and fact to support the plea before accepting it

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. a military judge abuses his discretion if he accepts a guilty plea without an adequate factual basis to support the plea - an area in which an appellate court affords the judge significant deference; additionally, any ruling based on an erroneous view of the law also constitutes an abuse of discretion
2. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that appellant’s guilty pleas remained provident despite potentially contradictory testimony from a forensic psychiatrist who testified for appellant during sentencing that he suffered from bipolar disorder with psychotic features, but that there was no indication that he did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offenses, where the judge inquired into appellant’s mental condition following the psychiatrist’s testimony and addressed the potential inconsistency in that testimony regarding appellant’s mental responsibility at the time of the offenses and he did so against a backdrop of consistent RCM 706 boards that found the likelihood that appellant was unable to appreciated the nature and wrongfulness of his behavior as statistically improbable

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. a military judge abuses his discretion if he accepts a guilty plea without an adequate factual basis to support the plea - an area in which an appellate court affords the judge significant deference; additionally, any ruling based on an erroneous view of the law also constitutes an abuse of discretion
2. during a guilty plea inquiry, the military judge is charged with determining whether there is an adequate basis in law and fact to support the plea before accepting it
3. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that appellant’s guilty pleas remained provident despite potentially contradictory testimony from a forensic psychiatrist who testified for appellant during sentencing that he suffered from bipolar disorder with psychotic features, but that there was no indication that he did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offenses, where the judge inquired into appellant’s mental condition following the psychiatrist’s testimony and addressed the potential inconsistency in that testimony regarding appellant’s mental responsibility at the time of the offenses and he did so against a backdrop of consistent RCM 706 boards that found the likelihood that appellant was unable to appreciated the nature and wrongfulness of his behavior as statistically improbable

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

1. the standard for reviewing a military judge’s decision to accept a plea of guilty is an abuse of discretion; a military judge abuses his discretion if he accepts a guilty plea without an adequate factual basis to support the plea - an area in which an appellate court affords the judge significant deference; additionally, any ruling based on an erroneous view of the law also constitutes an abuse of discretion; the military judge’s determinations of questions of law arising during or after the plea inquiry are reviewed de novo
2. in reviewing a military judge’s acceptance of a plea for an abuse of discretion, appellate courts apply a substantial basis test: does the record as a whole show a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the guilty plea; traditionally, this test is presented in the conjunctive (i.e., law and fact); however, the test is better considered in the disjunctive (i.e., law or fact)
3. in summary, an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion and questions of law arising from the guilty plea de novo; in doing so, it applies the substantial basis test, looking at whether there is something in the record of trial, with regard to the factual basis or the law, that would raise a substantial question regarding appellant’s guilty plea