U.S. v. Castro, 81 M.J. 209

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. during a guilty plea inquiry, a military judge must determine whether there is an adequate basis in law and fact to support the plea before accepting it

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in accepting appellant’s guilty plea to stealing gas that was the property of GSA by using a GSA fuel card without authorization to purchase gas for his car, despite the fact that GSA never had physical possession of the fuel before it was stolen and that appellant was not acting as the GSA’s agent in purchasing the fuel; appellant stipulated that the GSA paid for and owned the fuel that he put into his car and he confirmed this fact during the providence inquiry; because GSA was the entity that paid for the fuel, it thus had an interest therein superior to that of appellant as required for it to qualify as the owner of the fuel at the time the fuel was appropriated by appellant for his personal use; withholding the fuel from a party with a superior possessory interest is sufficient to constitute larceny; furthermore, an agency relationship is therefore not always necessary for the payer to have a greater right to possess the purchased property; appellant stipulated facts that were legally possible and that were consistent with his guilty plea; accordingly, appellant failed to show a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the military judge’s acceptance of his guilty plea

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 121 - Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation Pre-2019 offenses

1. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in accepting appellant’s guilty plea to stealing gas that was the property of GSA by using a GSA fuel card without authorization to purchase gas for his car, despite the fact that GSA never had physical possession of the fuel before it was stolen and that appellant was not acting as the GSA’s agent in purchasing the fuel; appellant stipulated that the GSA paid for and owned the fuel that he put into his car and he confirmed this fact during the providence inquiry; because GSA was the entity that paid for the fuel, it thus had an interest therein superior to that of appellant as required for it to qualify as the owner of the fuel at the time the fuel was appropriated by appellant for his personal use; withholding the fuel from a party with a superior possessory interest is sufficient to constitute larceny; furthermore, an agency relationship is therefore not always necessary for the payer to have a greater right to possess the purchased property; appellant stipulated facts that were legally possible and that were consistent with his guilty plea; accordingly, appellant failed to show a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the military judge’s acceptance of his guilty plea
2. ownership of property is not purely a question of fact because ownership ultimately depends upon legal principles; however, the practical reality is that most facts regarding common transactions in property (e.g., whether someone bought goods, possessed goods, owned goods, or sold goods) have some legal component to them and yet are customarily treated as facts susceptible to stipulation

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Stipulations

1. unless properly withdrawn or ordered stricken from the record, a stipulation of fact that has been accepted is binding on the court-martial and may not be contradicted by the parties thereto
2. ownership of property is not purely a question of fact because ownership ultimately depends upon legal principles; however, the practical reality is that most facts regarding common transactions in property (e.g., whether someone bought goods, possessed goods, owned goods, or sold goods) have some legal component to them and yet are customarily treated as facts susceptible to stipulation
3. parties may stipulate to facts that are legally possible; and if an appellant has not shown that the facts are legally impossible, then under RCM 811(e), then the court must accept the facts as true without obliging the parties to demonstrate why they are true

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. during a guilty plea inquiry, a military judge must determine whether there is an adequate basis in law and fact to support the plea before accepting it
2. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in accepting appellant’s guilty plea to stealing gas that was the property of GSA by using a GSA fuel card without authorization to purchase gas for his car, despite the fact that GSA never had physical possession of the fuel before it was stolen and that appellant was not acting as the GSA’s agent in purchasing the fuel; appellant stipulated that the GSA paid for and owned the fuel that he put into his car and he confirmed this fact during the providence inquiry; because GSA was the entity that paid for the fuel, it thus had an interest therein superior to that of appellant as required for it to qualify as the owner of the fuel at the time the fuel was appropriated by appellant for his personal use; withholding the fuel from a party with a superior possessory interest is sufficient to constitute larceny; furthermore, an agency relationship is therefore not always necessary for the payer to have a greater right to possess the purchased property; appellant stipulated facts that were legally possible and that were consistent with his guilty plea; accordingly, appellant failed to show a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the military judge’s acceptance of his guilty plea
3. there is no requirement that any witness be called or any independent evidence be produced to establish the factual predicate for the plea; a factual predicate is sufficiently established if the factual circumstances as revealed by the accused himself objectively support that plea

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion; in so doing, 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 the appellant’s guilty plea; and in reviewing a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea, the court must accept all of the facts in the parties’ stipulation as true