CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic

U.S. v. Craig, 68 M.J. 399

Decided Mar 9, 2010 · No. 09-0759/NA · September 2009 Term · Opinion (PDF)

Digested under 4 topics

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

  1. an unconditional guilty plea waives multiplicity claims when the offenses are not facially duplicative
  2. appellant’s unconditional guilty pleas waived the issue of whether the specifications charging appellant with receipt and possession of the same child pornography were multiplicious, where the specifications were not facially duplicative because appellant received the files of the images on one medium and stored them on another

Trial Stages: Merits: Multiplicity for Findings

  1. the receipt and possession of the same child pornography were not facially duplicative offenses where appellant received the files of the images on one medium and stored them on another

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

  1. an unconditional guilty plea waives multiplicity claims when the offenses are not facially duplicative
  2. appellant’s unconditional guilty pleas waived the issue of whether the specifications charging appellant with receipt and possession of the same child pornography were multiplicious, where the specifications were not facially duplicative because appellant received the files of the images on one medium and stored them on another

Miscellaneous Matters: Multiplicity and Lesser Included Offenses: Generally

  1. an unconditional guilty plea waives multiplicity claims when the offenses are not facially duplicative
  2. appellant’s unconditional guilty pleas waived the issue of whether the specifications charging appellant with receipt and possession of the same child pornography were multiplicious, where the specifications were not facially duplicative because appellant received the files of the images on one medium and stored them on another
Source and status

This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.

Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).