Court Opinion

ID: 9564557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:02:57.665111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:41.721779
License: Public Domain

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
             C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
                          ________________________

                              No. ACM S32737
                          ________________________

                             UNITED STATES
                                 Appellee
                                      v.
                          John L. WALKER
           Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                          ________________________

        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                          Decided 21 August 2023
                          ________________________

Military Judge: Shad R. Kidd.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 16 June 2022 by GCM convened at Peter-
son Space Force Base, Colorado. Sentence entered by military judge on
18 July 2022: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and re-
duction to E-1.
For Appellant: Major Heather M. Caine, USAF.
For Appellee: Colonel Naomi P. Dennis, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel G.
Matt Osborne, USAF; Major Morgan R. Christie, USAF; Captain Olivia
B. Hoff, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before RICHARDSON, CADOTTE, and ANNEXSTAD, Appellate Mili-
tary Judges.
                            ________________________

     This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
                       ________________________
PER CURIAM:
    At a special court-martial, a military judge convicted Appellant, in accord-
ance with his pleas, and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one charge and one
specification of reckless operation of a vehicle, and one charge and three spec-
ifications of domestic violence in violation of Articles 113 and 128b, Uniform
                   United States v. Walker, No. ACM S32737

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 913, 928b.1 The military judge
sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and
reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority took no action on the
sentence.

                       I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
     Appellant raises three issues: whether (1) a provision in Appellant’s plea
agreement providing that dismissal of certain charges and specifications would
only ripen into dismissal with prejudice upon “the guilty findings in accordance
with [his] plea being affirmed on final appellate review” is void or otherwise
unenforceable; (2) a provision in Appellant’s plea agreement requiring the mil-
itary judge to adjudge a bad-conduct discharge violates Appellant’s constitu-
tional rights or otherwise is unenforceable; and (3) Appellant is entitled to re-
lief because the charge of domestic violence was not referred by the convening
authority.2
    With respect to issue (1) we find Appellant is not entitled to relief. See, e.g.,
United States v. Goldsmith, No. ACM 40148, 2023 CCA LEXIS 8, at *15 (A.F.
Ct. Crim. App. 11 Jan. 2023) (unpub. op.) (finding plea agreement term—re-
quiring the convening authority to dismiss the additional charges and specifi-
cations with prejudice “upon completion of appellate review where the findings
and sentence have been upheld”—is permissible because it does not violate law
or public policy).
    With respect to issue (2) we find Appellant is not entitled to relief. See, e.g.,
United States v. Geier, ACM S32679 (f rev), 2022 CCA LEXIS 468, at *13 (A.F.
Ct. Crim. App. 2 Aug. 2022) (unpub. op.) (finding “plea agreement provision
requiring a military judge or court members to sentence [a]ppellant to a bad-
conduct discharge” did not violate the United States Constitution, UCMJ, or
public policy).
    As to issue (3), we have carefully considered Appellant’s contentions and
find they do not warrant relief. See United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28, 32
(C.A.A.F. 2012) (finding that a convening authority’s entry into a plea agree-
ment was the functional equivalent of a referral order).

1 All references to the UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-Martial are to the Manual for

Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).
2 Issue (3) was raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.

1982).

                                            2
                  United States v. Walker, No. ACM S32737

                               II. CONCLUSION
    The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Ar-
ticles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the find-
ings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                     FOR THE COURT

                     CAROL K. JOYCE
                     Clerk of the Court

                                       3