UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32435

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Braxton T. SWAFFORD

Airman Basic (E-1), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 4 December 2017

________________________

Military Judge: J. Wesley Moore.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 45 days, and forfeiture of $500.00 pay for one month. Sentence adjudged 2 August 2016 by 

SpCM convened at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. 

For Appellant: Major Allen S. Abrams, USAF (argued); Colonel Jane E.

Boomer.

For Appellee: Major J. Ronald Steelman III, USAF (argued); Captain Anne M. 

Delmare, USAF (on brief); Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Major 

Mary Ellen Payne, USAF; Major Meredith L. Steer, USAF; Major Matthew L. 

Tusing.

Amicus Curiae for Appellant: Rebecca I. Naranjo (law student); Andrea M. 

Piloto (law student); Eric R. Carpenter, Esq. (supervising attorney)—Florida 

International University School of Law.

Before DREW, MAYBERRY, and DENNIS, Appellate Military Judges.

Judge DENNIS delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Judge DREW 

and Senior Judge MAYBERRY joined.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________
United States v. Swafford, No. ACM S32435

2

DENNIS, Judge:

A special court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members convicted 

Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one charge and specification of wrongful use 

of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a. The members sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct 

discharge, confinement for 45 days, and forfeiture of $500.00 pay for one 

month.1

Appellant asks this court to set aside his conviction. At the heart of his 

request is an assertion that his conviction was based on pretrial statements 

taken in violation of his rights to counsel. In his sole assignment of error, Appellant alleges that his trial defense counsel was ineffective in not filing a motion to suppress the statements. Having reviewed his rights to counsel under 

the Fifth2 and Sixth3 Amendments, we find no violation of these rights occurred. While we hold that Appellant is also protected by an expanded right to 

counsel under Military Rule of Evidence 305(c)(3), we do not find a violation of 

that right in Appellant’s case. Accordingly, we affirm.4 

I. BACKGROUND

This is Appellant’s second court-martial for wrongful use of marijuana. His 

first court-martial (Swafford I) included one specification of wrongful use of 

marijuana on divers occasions between 1 August and 5 November 2015, as well 

as one specification of wrongful distribution of marijuana during the same period. Swafford I was tried on 29 March 2016. United States v. Swafford, No. 

ACM S32416, 2017 CCA LEXIS 681 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 17 Oct. 2017) (unpub. 

op.). Prior to his court-martial in Swafford I, Appellant was detailed a military 

defense counsel, Captain (Capt) PC, who submitted a Notice of Representation 

on 24 February 2016 to Appellant’s commander, the Sheppard Air Force Base 

(SAFB) legal office, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) 

stating the following:

1. This is to inform you that I currently represent, and have 

an attorney-client relationship with A1C Braxton T. Swafford

pertaining to all potential military adverse actions. Conse-

 

1 The members announced a sentence which included “$500.00 pay for three months.” 

The staff judge advocate’s recommendation noted the error in failing to include the 

required “pay per month” language in the announcement of sentence. Only so much of 

the sentence as provided for $500.00 pay for one month was approved.

2 U.S. CONST. amend. V.

3 U.S. CONST. amend. VI.

4 We heard oral argument in this case on 24 October 2017 at Florida International

University School of Law as part of Project Outreach.
United States v. Swafford, No. ACM S32435

3

quently, I request that you not interview, interrogate, or question him and that you refrain from requesting any statements, 

oral or written, unless and until you have contacted me. Furthermore, any prior consent for search, samples or any other procedure is hereby withdrawn.

2. This request is in accordance with the rights afforded by 

Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military 

Rules of Evidence 305(e) and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments 

to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by case law. 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding 

in this matter.

Appellant subsequently entered into a pretrial agreement (PTA) in which 

he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the convening authority’s agreement 

to cap his confinement at six months. There were no other sentencing limitations. Appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for two 

months, and reduction to E-1. Appellant was ordered to provide a urine sample

the same day he entered confinement. This sample tested positive for marijuana and led to a single charge and specification of wrongful use of marijuana 

on divers occasions between on or about 1 March and 29 March 2016—the 

charge currently before this court. 

AFOSI Detective MB—the same detective who investigated Appellant in 

Swafford I—received notice of Appellant’s positive urinalysis while Appellant 

was still in confinement for Swafford I. He arranged with the Wichita County 

Sheriff’s Office to transport Appellant to SAFB for AFOSI questioning on 

22 April 2016, prior to the completion of post-trial processing in Swafford I.

Detective MB began the interview by showing Appellant the positive urinalysis result and advising him of his rights under Article 31, UCMJ. Capt PC 

was not present for the interview. Appellant waived his Article 31, UCMJ,

rights and declined to have counsel present.5 Appellant told Detective MB that

he did not know why his urine test was positive for marijuana, and suggested 

the positive 29 March 2016 test might be from his smoking marijuana on 5 

November 2015. Appellant further stated that he believed marijuana could

stay in a person’s system for up to 90 days. Appellant also gave written consent 

to search his dorm room and his cellular phone. 

Detective MB searched Appellant’s cell phone and found text messages between Appellant and Airman First Class (A1C) JS. That same day, Detective 

 

5 Appellant’s interview was apparently recorded in accordance with AFOSI standard 

operating procedures. The recording, however, is not included in the record of trial. 

The evidence of Appellant’s waiver was introduced at trial through the cross-examination of Detective MB. 
United States v. Swafford, No. ACM S32435

4

MB interviewed A1C JS. A1C JS told investigators that Appellant was in fact 

living off-base, that in March 2016 at the off-base residence Appellant showed 

him a jar holding approximately one ounce of marijuana, and that he had seen 

Appellant smoke marijuana five or six times in March 2016. The charge in this 

case was subsequently preferred on 13 May 2016 and referred for trial on 18 

May 2016. Capt PC was notified of the new charge and specification and receipted for the referral on 18 May 2016.

Capt PC submitted a written waiver of Appellant’s right to submit matters 

for clemency in Swafford I on 10 June 2016. According to the declaration from 

Capt PC provided to this court, Capt PC’s representation of Appellant concluded upon the waiver submission. The Swafford I sentence was approved as 

adjudged on 16 June 2016, after Appellant had already completed his term of 

confinement. 

Appellant’s trial defense counsel in the case now before us, Major (Maj) AC, 

began her representation of Appellant “in early July 2016.” According to the 

declaration Maj AC submitted to this court, she knew Appellant was interviewed while in confinement for his previous court-martial, but decided “there 

was not a reasonable basis for filing a motion to suppress.” Specifically, Maj 

AC believed Detective MB questioned Appellant about new misconduct not related to his previous representation. 

At trial, Appellant testified in his own defense. He testified that he used 

marijuana in the fall of 2015 as a result of stress in his life and was courtmartialed. He denied using marijuana in March of 2016. On cross-examination, trial counsel sought to discredit Appellant’s denial of misconduct using 

statements from his April 2016 interview with Detective MB. Trial counsel offered the Swafford I court-martial order—which showed the original trial involved the use and distribution of marijuana—to rebut the premise that Appellant’s crimes were stress induced. 

II. DISCUSSION

Appellant alleges he was denied the effective assistance of counsel under 

the Sixth Amendment protections outlined in Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3). 

In an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, “the burden rests on 

the accused to demonstrate a constitutional violation.” United States v. Cronic, 

466 U.S. 648, 658 (1984). Appellant must show his trial defense counsel was

not only deficient, but that the deficiency prejudiced his defense. Wiggins v. 

Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 

687 (1984)). Counsel is deficient when representation falls “below an objective 

standard of reasonableness.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). To establish prejudice, Appellant must show there is a “reasonable probability that, 

but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have 
United States v. Swafford, No. ACM S32435

5

been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine 

confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 534 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Consistent with this principle, our superior court has stated, “[w]hen a 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is premised on counsel’s failure to 

make a motion to suppress evidence, an appellant must show that there is a 

reasonable probability that such a motion would have been meritorious.” 

United States v. Jameson, 65 M.J. 160, 163–64 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (quoting United 

States v. McConnell, 55 M.J. 479, 482 (C.A.A.F. 2001)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). As applied to this case, Appellant must establish that his right 

to counsel was violated. We review such claims de novo. United States v. 

Gutierrez, 66 M.J. 329, 330–31 (C.A.A.F. 2008).

Within the military justice system, the right to counsel stems from multiple sources: the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the Military Rules of Evidence,

and the published decisions of this and our superior courts interpreting these 

rights. “While the protections afforded an accused by these sources may overlap, they are not coextensive and require independent analysis.” United States 

v. Kerns, 75 M.J. 783, 788 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2016); see also United States v. 

Evans, 75 M.J. 302, 305 (C.A.A.F. 2016). In order to assess whether Appellant’s motion to suppress would have been successful, we will review the merits of each of these rights to counsel, as interpreted by precedent, in turn.

We begin with the Fifth Amendment. Under the Fifth Amendment, the 

right to counsel is invoked once an accused unequivocally requests counsel in 

a custodial setting. See Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988). Once invoked, 

the right may be waived under any one of three circumstances: (1) counsel is 

present; (2) the accused person initiates communication with law enforcement; 

or (3) 14 non-custodial days have passed since the invocation. Maryland v. 

Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 104–11 (2010) (citing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 

484 (1981)) (additional citations omitted). Here, Appellant was properly advised and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Thus, Appellant concedes, 

and we agree, there was not a Fifth Amendment violation in his case. See

United States v. Finch, 64 M.J. 118, 125 (C.A.A.F. 2006). 

Next, we turn to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which includes 

elements similar to and distinct from the Fifth Amendment. Like the Fifth, a 

Sixth Amendment right to counsel may only be invoked by an affirmative request for counsel. Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009). Once invoked, the 

right may be waived if the accused initiates the communication. Id. Unlike the 

Fifth, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and only attaches once charges have been brought. Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 167–68

(2001) (quoting McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175 (1991)). In Cobb, the 

Supreme Court rejected a claim that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel 
United States v. Swafford, No. ACM S32435

6

extended to those offenses which were “factually related” to charged offenses. 

Id. at 168. The Court held that any extension of the Sixth Amendment beyond 

“the four corners of a charging instrument” would only apply to those offenses 

that would be considered the same offense under the Blockburger6 elements

test. Cobb, 532 U.S. at 173. Here, although Appellant was represented by Capt 

PC at the time he was questioned, the Sixth Amendment did not extend Capt 

PC’s representation to the new charge since it did not satisfy the elements test. 

Specifically, the new charge involved an entirely separate offense than the offenses in Swafford I. Capt PC’s notice of representation, to the extent it constituted an invocation on behalf of Appellant, was not applicable to all future 

prosecutions.7 McNeil, 501 U.S. at 175. 

The last right to counsel we will examine arises from Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3). 

The critical question is whether Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) afforded Appellant a

right to counsel beyond those recognized by the Court’s interpretation of the 

Sixth Amendment in Cobb. Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) provides that:

If an accused against whom charges have been preferred is 

interrogated on the matters concerning the preferred charges by 

anyone acting in a law enforcement capacity . . . and the accused 

requests counsel, or if the accused has appointed or retained 

counsel, any statement made in the interrogation, or evidence 

derived from the interrogation, is inadmissible unless counsel 

was present for the interrogation.

Supplement to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Military 

Rules of Evidence (2012 ed.) (2012 MCM Supp.), pt. III, Mil. R. Evid, 305(c)(3) 

(emphasis added).

The fact that Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) offers broader protections than the 

Sixth Amendment is clear on its face. The Rule’s provision that it applies “if 

the accused has appointed or retained counsel” is plainly broader than the 

Montejo requirement to affirmatively request counsel. Before the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Montejo, Mil. R. Evid. 305 protected military accused who 

had not affirmatively requested counsel. Recognizing the conflict, the drafters 

of the Rule offered guidance to clarify how the Montejo decision affected the 

existing Rule. The analysis of Mil. R. Evid. 305, (Drafters’ Analysis), provides 

that “the protections of subsection (c)(3) exceed the constitutional minimal 

standard established by the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme 

 

6 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).

7 In light of this finding, we need not address Appellant’s waiver in a Sixth Amendment 

context.
United States v. Swafford, No. ACM S32435

7

Court in Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009).” 2012 MCM Supp, App. 22, 

at A22-19 (emphasis added). The drafters specifically noted that, contrary to 

the Court’s holding, a military accused “need not affirmatively request counsel.” Id. By including this language, the drafters reaffirmed the preexisting 

Rule protecting a military accused’s expanded right to appointed counsel under 

Mil. R. Evid. 305.8 The Rule itself remained unchanged.

Unlike their clarification of the Montejo decision, the Drafters’ Analysis 

provides no clarification as to how Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) is to be read in light 

of Cobb, despite it being decided eight years earlier than Montejo. The Rule’s

language on matters concerning the preferred charge remained largely unchanged.9 It is also worth noting that many other changes have been made to 

Mil. R. Evid. 305 to conform the Rule with changes to Supreme Court precedent

since Cobb was decided in 2001. See 2012 MCM Supp., App. 22, at A15. Despite 

these changes, we find no evidence that the President sought to align Mil. R. 

Evid. 305(c)(3) with the elements test limitations set forth in Cobb. We therefore rely on prior interpretations of Sixth Amendment protections afforded to 

military accused. See generally United States v. Wattenbarger, 21 M.J. 41, 43–

45 (C.M.A. 1985) (finding that the Sixth Amendment may attach prior to the 

preferral of charges in unusual circumstances), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 904 

(1986).

In light of these considerations, we hold that an accused’s Sixth Amendment protections under Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) are broader than those outlined 

by the Supreme Court in Cobb. This is not to suggest that the scope of Mil. R. 

Evid. 305(c)(3) is without limitation. It affords protections rooted in the Sixth 

Amendment and requires, at a minimum, a preferral of charges. Id. (citing 

United States v. Adams, 45 C.M.R. 175, 179 (C.M.A. 1972)). 

Finally, we apply the Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) right to counsel to Appellant’s 

case. The only charges that had been preferred at the time Appellant was questioned were those tried in Swafford I. Appellant asserts that he nevertheless 

satisfied the requirements of Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) because the charge in this 

case “concerned” the preferred offense. Appellant identifies several connections 

between Swafford I and the charged offense in this case to support his claim. 

These include the fact that both cases involved a charge for the use of mariju-

 

8 See 2008 MCM, pt. III, Mil. R. Evid. 305(e)(2). The language in 305(e)(2) was added 

to 305(c)(3) following the reorganization of Mil. R. Evid. 305 in the 2012 MCM Supp.

9 E.g., 2012 MCM, pt. III, Mil. R. Evid. 305(d)(1)(B); 2008 MCM, pt. III, Mil. R. Evid. 

305(d)(1)(B); 2005 MCM, pt. III, Mil. R. Evid. 305(d)(1)(B); 2002 MCM, pt. III, Mil. R. 

Evid. 305(d)(1)(B); 2000 MCM, pt. III, Mil. R. Evid. 305(d)(1)(B).
United States v. Swafford, No. ACM S32435

8

ana and were investigated by the same AFOSI agent as well as the chronological overlap between the pretrial processing of this case and the post-trial processing of Swafford I. We are not persuaded.

Unlike Cobb, there was no factual relationship between the charges in 

Swafford I and the charge in this case. In fact, Detective MB began Appellant’s

interview by specifically indicating that the offenses underlying Swafford I 

were “water under the bridge” and would not be discussed. Notably, it was Appellant who repeatedly brought up the use for which he was previously tried, 

both during the interview with AFOSI and at trial. Finally, Appellant suggests 

the interrogation could have jeopardized his pending PTA. We find this assertion without merit. Appellant’s PTA, signed on 4 March 2016, only allowed for 

withdrawal from the agreement if he committed an offense between sentencing 

and action, not between the date of the agreement and action. Appellant’s 

wrongful use in this case occurred between on or about 1 March and 29 March 

2016. He was sentenced in Swafford I on 29 March 2016 and placed into confinement the same day. Moreover, Appellant’s adjudged two-month sentence 

in Swafford I fell well below the sentence cap of six months. The convening 

authority’s withdrawal from the PTA would have had no effect. In short, Appellant’s rights to counsel under Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) were not violated.

Appellant has failed to demonstrate that a motion to suppress would have 

been meritorious. McConnell, 55 M.J. at 482. There is consequently no need to 

analyze whether Maj AC’s performance was deficient. Id. at 481. Appellant’s

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails for lack of prejudice. We leave for 

another day whether, in a different factual scenario, it is appropriate under 

Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(3) to question a represented accused. 

III. CONCLUSION

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. 

FOR THE COURT

KATHLEEN M. POTTER

Acting Clerk of the Court