U.S. v. Garner, 69 M.J. 31

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. with respect to his guilty plea to attempting to violate 18 USC § 2422(b) by using the Internet to knowingly persuade, entice, and induce a minor to engage in sexual intercourse and oral sodomy in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, appellant admitted that he intended to persuade, entice, or induce an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl in an Internet chat room into sexual activity; appellant specifically explained that his communications to this “girl” were designed to induce her to engage in sexual activity, and he admitted that those actions constituted more than mere preparatory steps; he further acknowledged that in sending this “girl” a sexually explicit video of himself, he sought to persuade or entice her to engage in sexual activity; in light of appellant’s own admissions during the providence inquiry, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in accepting the plea; quite simply, where an accused pleads guilty and during the providence inquiry admits that he went beyond mere preparation and points to a particular action that satisfies himself on this point, it is neither legally nor logically well-founded to say that actions that may be ambiguous on this point fall short of the line as a matter of law so as to be substantially inconsistent with the guilty plea

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. with respect to his guilty plea to attempting to violate 18 USC § 2422(b) by using the Internet to knowingly persuade, entice, and induce a minor to engage in sexual intercourse and oral sodomy in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, appellant admitted that he intended to persuade, entice, or induce an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl in an Internet chat room into sexual activity; appellant specifically explained that his communications to this “girl” were designed to induce her to engage in sexual activity, and he admitted that those actions constituted more than mere preparatory steps; he further acknowledged that in sending this “girl” a sexually explicit video of himself, he sought to persuade or entice her to engage in sexual activity; in light of appellant’s own admissions during the providence inquiry, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in accepting the plea; quite simply, where an accused pleads guilty and during the providence inquiry admits that he went beyond mere preparation and points to a particular action that satisfies himself on this point, it is neither legally nor logically well-founded to say that actions that may be ambiguous on this point fall short of the line as a matter of law so as to be substantially inconsistent with the guilty plea

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

1. when considering a conviction pursuant to a guilty plea, an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion; in doing so, the court 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