U.S. v. Morton, 69 M.J. 12

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. affirming a guilty plea based on admissions to an offense to which an accused had not in fact pleaded guilty and which was not a lesser included offense of the charged offense was inconsistent with traditional due process notions of fair notice

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: General Powers

1. in cases where offenses are pleaded for exigencies of proof, depending on what the plea inquiry reveals or of which offense the accused is ultimately found guilty, the military judge may properly accept the plea and dismiss the remaining offense

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Charges and Specifications

1. it is the government’s responsibility to determine what offense to bring against an accused; aware of the evidence in its possession, the government is presumably cognizant of which offenses are supported by the evidence and which are not; in some instances, there may be a genuine question as to whether one offense as opposed to another is sustainable; in such a case, the prosecution may properly charge both offenses for exigencies of proof, a long accepted practice in military law

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. an accused has a right to know to what offense and under what legal theory he or she is pleading guilty; this fair notice resides at the heart of the plea inquiry
2. an accused may choose, with convening authority approval, to plead guilty to any amended specification as long as the plea inquiry establishes that such a plea is knowing and voluntary and the plea is accepted by the military judge
3. in cases where offenses are pleaded for exigencies of proof, depending on what the plea inquiry reveals or of which offense the accused is ultimately found guilty, the military judge may properly accept the plea and dismiss the remaining offense

Trial Stages: Merits: Pretrial Agreements

1. the convening authority’s entry into a pretrial agreement that calls for pleas of guilty to offenses different from those charged is the functional equivalent to an order referring those offenses to the court-martial

Trial Stages: Appeals: Generally

1. affirming a guilty plea based on admissions to an offense to which an accused had not in fact pleaded guilty and which was not a lesser included offense of the charged offense was inconsistent with traditional due process notions of fair notice
2. in light of the abiding principle of fair notice to an accused in the context of guilty pleas and an accused’s right to understand to what he is pleading guilty and on what basis, the closely-related-offense doctrine, allowing an appellate court to uphold a conviction when the providence inquiry clearly establishes guilt of an offense different from but closely related to the crime to which the accused has pleaded guilty, is no longer viable, overruling United States v. Hubbard, 28 MJ 203, United States v. Epps, 25 MJ 319, United States v. Wright, 22 MJ 25, United States v. Graves, 20 MJ 344, and United States v. Felty, 12 MJ 438
3. after it was determined on appeal that the factual basis for an accused’s guilty pleas could not support convictions for two forgery specifications, the application of the closely-related-offense doctrine to affirm two violations of making a false official statements, an offense that was not an LIO of forgery, violated due process