U.S. v. Moratalla, 82 M.J. 1

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. before accepting a guilty plea, a military judge must ensure that there is a factual basis for the accused’s plea; a factual predicate for a plea of guilty is sufficiently established if the factual circumstances as revealed by the accused himself objectively support that plea
2. in obtaining a factual basis for a plea, a military judge must elicit actual facts from an accused and not merely legal conclusions
3. despite the existence of an otherwise adequate basis for a plea, if an accused sets up matter inconsistent with the plea at any time during the proceeding, the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea; however, a mere possibility of conflict is not enough

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. a military judge’s failure to obtain an adequate factual basis for a guilty plea constitutes an abuse of discretion

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 80 - Attempts Offenses on/after 1 Jan 2019

1. to be guilty of an attempt, an accused must (1) have had the intent to commit the substantive offense, and (2) have taken a substantial step toward its completion

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Art. 134 - Miscellaneous -- Clause 1, Clause 2, or Clause 3 Offenses on/after 1 Jan 2019

1. Article 134, UCMJ, extends court-martial jurisdiction over noncapital crimes or offenses which violate federal law; one such federal offense is contained in the federal bank fraud statute, which makes it a crime to knowingly execute, or attempt to execute, a scheme or artifice (1) to defraud a financial institution, or (2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises
2. the bank fraud statute punishes not only completed frauds, but also fraudulent schemes, including attempted fraudulent schemes
3. just as an accused’s belief in the truth of the misrepresentations may negate intent to defraud, an accused’s belief in the falsity of his or her statements tends to establish the intent to defraud
4. appellant’s guilty plea to bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and charged under Article 134, UCMJ, was provident where the military judge established during the plea colloquy that (1) in order for appellant to secure funds for a house flipping business, she enlisted the help of a co-worker who agreed to apply for a loan at a credit union and to falsely represent to the credit union that he would use the loan proceeds to purchase appellant’s vehicle, (2) appellant had the specific intent to defraud the credit union, and (3) appellant took a substantial step in furtherance of the scheme to defraud when she met with the co-worker at the credit union to apply for the loan; contrary to appellant’s argument, it was irrelevant to the disposition of this case whether or not appellant actually sold her vehicle to the co-worker when she transferred the title to him after the bank loan had been secured; at the time of the application for the bank loan, appellant subjectively believed that her actions would not effect a car sale and intended that the credit union would rely to its detriment on representations she believed to be false; such actions clearly amounted to an attempt to execute a scheme to defraud the credit union, and the bank fraud statute punishes not only completed frauds, but also fraudulent schemes, including attempted fraudulent schemes; thus there was nothing in the record that raised a substantial question regarding appellant’s guilty plea

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Stipulations

1. because a stipulation of fact is binding on the court-martial and may not be contradicted by the parties, an appellate court accepts as true all of the facts, but not necessarily the legal conclusions, contained in the parties’ stipulation

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. before accepting a guilty plea, a military judge must ensure that there is a factual basis for the accused’s plea; a factual predicate for a plea of guilty is sufficiently established if the factual circumstances as revealed by the accused himself objectively support that plea
2. in obtaining a factual basis for a plea, a military judge must elicit actual facts from an accused and not merely legal conclusions
3. despite the existence of an otherwise adequate basis for a plea, if an accused sets up matter inconsistent with the plea at any time during the proceeding, the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea; however, a mere possibility of conflict is not enough
4. appellant’s guilty plea to bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and charged under Article 134, UCMJ, was provident where the military judge established during the plea colloquy that (1) in order for appellant to secure funds for a house flipping business, she enlisted the help of a co-worker who agreed to apply for a loan at a credit union and to falsely represent to the credit union that he would use the loan proceeds to purchase appellant’s vehicle, (2) appellant had the specific intent to defraud the credit union, and (3) appellant took a substantial step in furtherance of the scheme to defraud when she met with the co-worker at the credit union to apply for the loan; contrary to appellant’s argument, it was irrelevant to the disposition of this case whether or not appellant actually sold her vehicle to the co-worker when she transferred the title to him after the bank loan had been secured; at the time of the application for the bank loan, appellant subjectively believed that her actions would not effect a car sale and intended that the credit union would rely to its detriment on representations she believed to be false; such actions clearly amounted to an attempt to execute a scheme to defraud the credit union, and the bank fraud statute punishes not only completed frauds, but also fraudulent schemes, including attempted fraudulent schemes; thus there was nothing in the record that raised a substantial question regarding appellant’s guilty plea

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

1. because a stipulation of fact is binding on the court-martial and may not be contradicted by the parties, an appellate court accepts as true all of the facts, but not necessarily the legal conclusions, contained in the parties’ stipulation
2. an appellate court affords military judges significant deference on obtaining an adequate factual basis for a guilty plea, and it grants them substantial leeway in conducting providence inquiries
3. in determining whether a military judge abused his or her discretion in obtaining an adequate basis for a guilty plea, an appellate court applies the substantial basis test; it asks 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
4. an appellate court gives broad discretion to military judges in accepting guilty pleas because it recognizes that facts are by definition undeveloped in such cases
5. even if a guilty plea is later determined to be improvident, a reviewing court may grant relief only if it finds that the military judge’s error in accepting the plea materially prejudiced the substantial rights of the accused