U.S. v. Mooney, 77 M.J. 252

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. an unconditional plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional defects at earlier stages of the proceedings
2. RCM 910(j) provides a bright-line rule that an unconditional guilty plea which results in a finding of guilty waives any objection, whether or not previously raised, insofar as the objection relates to the factual issue of guilt of the offenses to which the plea was made

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Action

1. in light of the comprehensive statutory scheme for deferring and interrupting sentences under Articles 14, 57, and 57a, UCMJ, in this case, the convening authority was not authorized to order a consecutive sentence where a federal conviction was followed by a court-martial conviction; the statutory provisions permitted interruption of military confinement only if the accused was tried, sentenced, and serving the adjudged military confinement prior to his release to the civilian authorities to face trial by them, and permitted deferment of confinement only if the accused requested deferment or was in the custody of a state or foreign country when he was returned for trial by court-martial

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Deferral

1. (Article 57(b) provides that a member’s sentence to confinement runs from the date it is adjudged; however, it may be deferred by the convening authority under Article 57a(b); if it is not deferred, then the sentence to confinement would run concurrently with any state sentence an accused was serving; Congress has constrained the power of the convening authority to defer sentences without the request of the accused to when certain conditions are met; under the UCMJ, these prerequisites are: (1) the member is in the custody of a state or foreign county, (2) the member is temporarily returned by that state or foreign country to the armed forces for trial by court-martial, and (3) after the court-martial, the member is returned to that state or foreign country under the authority of a mutual agreement or treaty); under the cannon of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of others), it follows that when Congress expressly provided for deferment when a member is in custody of a state or foreign country, it intended to exclude when a member is in custody of the federal government)

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Execution of Sentences

1. Article 57(b), UCMJ, states, that any period of confinement included in a sentence of a court-martial begins to run from the date the sentence is adjudged by the court-martial, but periods during which the sentence to confinement is suspended or deferred shall be excluded in computing the service of the term of confinement; on its face, Article 57(b), UCMJ, expressly requires that the sentence of a court-martial to confinement runs from the date of adjudication; thus, once confinement is adjudged, only if it is then suspended or deferred does the confinement not run concurrently; additionally, although not expressly set out as an exception under Article 57(b), UCMJ, a previously adjudged military sentence to confinement may be interrupted pending proceedings in a civil tribunal under Article 14(b), UCMJ

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

1. an appellate court reviews questions of statutory construction de novo.

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

1. an appellate court does not review waived issues because a valid waiver leaves no error to correct on appeal
2. an unconditional plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional defects at earlier stages of the proceedings
3. appellant’s unconditional guilty plea and his pretrial agreement, stating he would waive all motions which may be waived under the RCMs, did not preclude him from challenging on appeal the convening authority’s action that ordered his military sentence to be served consecutively to his federal sentence; whether a convening authority has the power to order a consecutive sentence is not a pretrial defect and is not a factual issue relating to appellant’s guilt; additionally, because this issue did not arise until post-trial, there was no motion to be made during the court-martial; in fact, appellant affirmatively objected at the earliest opportunity, that is, when the SJA first proposed the consecutive sentence proposal to the convening authority in the addendum to the SJA’s post-trial recommendation

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

1. it is a fundamental tenet of statutory construction to construe a statute in accordance with its plain meaning
2. regardless of how opaque the rationale for a statute might be, the plain language meaning must be enforced and is rebutted only in rare and exceptional circumstances