UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Larry D. CRAIG Jr., Boatswain’s Mate Second Class 

U.S. Navy, Appellant 

No. 09-0759 

Crim. App. No. 200800716 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided March 9, 2010 

PER CURIAM 

Counsel

For Appellant: Lieutenant Brian D. Korn, JAGC, USN (on brief). 

For Appellee: Captain Mark V. Balfantz, USMC (on brief); 

Colonel Louis J. Puleo, USMC. 

Military Judge: Kevin O’Neil 

THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION. 
United States v. Craig, No. 09-0759/NA 

2

 PER CURIAM: 

Consistent with his pleas, Appellant was convicted by a 

military judge sitting alone as a general court-martial of 

receipt, distribution, and possession of child pornography, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2006), as incorporated by 

Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 

§ 934 (2006). The convening authority approved the adjudged 

sentence of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eighteen 

months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The United 

States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) 

disapproved the distribution specification but otherwise 

affirmed the findings and sentence. United States v. Craig, 67 

M.J. 742, 747 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2009). We granted review to 

consider whether the military judge committed plain error by not 

sua sponte declaring that the offenses of receiving and 

possessing the same child pornography were multiplicious. 

At trial, Appellant pled guilty unconditionally to the 

charge and all specifications and agreed to a pretrial 

agreement, stating he would “waive all motions except those that 

are otherwise non-waivable pursuant to [Rule for Courts-Martial] 

705(c)(1)(B).” In a stipulation of fact and during the 

providence inquiry, Appellant admitted he knowingly received and 

possessed child pornography. Specifically, Appellant admitted 

he (1) downloaded sixty-eight images and twenty-four movie files 
United States v. Craig, No. 09-0759/NA 

3

of child pornography using peer-to-peer software; (2) kept the 

files in his “share” folder, allowing others to download them; 

and (3) copied the files to “disks [sic].” 

 The CCA held that Appellant’s unconditional guilty pleas 

waived the issue of whether the receipt and possession 

specifications were multiplicious because these offenses were 

not facially duplicative, since they involved files on different 

media (compact discs, as opposed to a hard drive). Craig, 67 

M.J. at 746-47. 

 The CCA’s reasoning comports with our holding in United 

States v. Campbell, 68 M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2009), decided after 

the CCA handed down its decision. In Campbell, we held that an 

unconditional guilty plea waived multiplicity claims when the 

offenses were not facially duplicative. 68 M.J. at 220. Here, 

Appellant pled guilty unconditionally to the charge and all 

specifications. The CCA correctly held that the receipt and 

possession offenses were not facially duplicative because 

Appellant received the files on one medium and stored them on 

another. Craig, 67 M.J. at 746-47; see Campbell, 68 M.J. at 

220. 

 The judgment of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court 

of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.