Court Opinion

ID: 9660011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:01:07.09641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:18.769923
License: Public Domain

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

                                 No. ACM 40340
                            ________________________

                               UNITED STATES
                                   Appellee
                                         v.
                        Christopher N. GRAVES
              Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                            ________________________

        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                            Decided 23 August 2023
                            ________________________

Military Judge: Rebecca E. Schmidt (pretrial motion); Matthew D. Tal-
cott (pretrial motions); Pilar G. Wennrich (arraignment); Brian C. Ma-
son (trial). 1
Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 26 May 2022 by GCM convened at Joint
Base Anacostia-Bolling, Washington, District of Columbia. 2 Sentence
entered by military judge on 27 June 2022: Dishonorable discharge, con-
finement for 36 months, and reduction to E-1.
For Appellant: Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF; Major Jarett Merk,
USAF.
For Appellee: Captain Olivia B. Hoff, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before RICHARDSON, CADOTTE, and ANNEXSTAD, Appellate Mili-
tary Judges.
                            ________________________

1 The pretrial motions were pursuant to Article 30a, Uniform Code of Military Justice

(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 830a.
2 Appellant was arraigned at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.
                    United States v. Graves, No. ACM 40340

    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
                       ________________________
PER CURIAM:
    In accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant
was convicted of three specifications of sexual abuse of a minor, one specifica-
tion of obstruction of justice, and one specification of possession of child por-
nography, in violation of Articles 120b, 131b, and 134, Uniform Code of Mili-
tary Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 920b, 931b, 934.3 The military judge sen-
tenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, 36 months’ confinement, and re-
duction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the sentence in
its entirety.
    This case was submitted for our review on its merits without assignment
of error. During our review, we found the entry of judgment (EoJ) contains
errors, at least one of which is to the material prejudice of a substantial right
of Appellant. In our decretal paragraph we remand the case to the Chief Trial
Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, for modification of the EoJ.

                                  I. BACKGROUND
    Appellant entered into a plea agreement (PA) with the convening authority
on 12 May 2023. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the PA, Appellant agreed to plead
guilty to some offenses, and not guilty to others; he did not specify that he
would plead guilty by exceptions. Paragraph 3 of the PA, addressing the of-
fenses to which Appellant would plead not guilty, stated:
       The convening authority agrees to dismiss specification 3 of
       Charge I, specification 2 of Charge III, Charge IV and its speci-
       fication, and Charge V and its specification after sentencing. The
       convening authority agrees to line out “pictures, videos, and”
       from the specification of Charge II. The dismissal will be without
       prejudice, but the convening authority agrees not to refer the
       specifications anew unless [Appellant] break[s] the terms of this
       agreement.

3 One offense was committed before 1 January 2019; the others were committed after

that date. We considered the applicable edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial in
our review of the punitive articles of the UCMJ. Unless otherwise noted, all other ref-
erences to the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

                                          2
                   United States v. Graves, No. ACM 40340

(Emphasis added). The Specification of Charge II alleged Appellant obstructed
justice by deleting “pictures, videos, and messages” between himself and the
victim identified in Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge I.
    On 26 May 2022, Appellant entered pleas through his trial defense counsel
“[p]ursuant to the Plea Agreement.” He entered guilty and not guilty pleas in
line with his agreement in the PA, with one notable difference. To the Specifi-
cation of Charge II he pleaded as follows: “Guilty, except for the words ‘pic-
tures, videos, and,’ to those words: Not Guilty; to Charge II: Guilty.” The mili-
tary judge confirmed with Appellant that he pleaded guilty by exceptions to
the Specification of Charge II. The military judge conducted a providency in-
quiry into all the specifications to which Appellant pleaded guilty. For the
Specification of Charge II, the inquiry related only to messages, and not pic-
tures or videos.
   During his plea-agreement inquiry with Appellant, the military judge
asked for “the Government’s position with regards to whether or not [Appel-
lant] has complied with his terms of his plea agreement as listed under [para-
graph] 1 when he excepted those words.” Circuit Trial Counsel replied, “Our
position is he complied.” Later during this inquiry, the military judge briefly
asked Appellant about paragraph 3 of the PA, supra. He confirmed Appellant
understood and agreed
       the convening authority [is] agreeing to dismiss Specification 3
       of Charge I, Specification 2 of Charge III, Charge IV and its
       Specification, and Charge V and its Specification. And . . . the
       convening authority would agree to line out “pictures, videos,
       and,” consistent with the way [Appellant] pled, the excepted
       words from the Specification of Charge II; the dismissal would
       be without prejudice, but the convening authority agrees not to
       refer the specification[s] anew . . . unless [Appellant] break[s]
       the terms of the agreement.
At the end of the plea-agreement inquiry, both parties stated they agreed with
the military judge’s interpretation of the PA.
   The military judge announced findings “in accordance with [Appellant’s]
pleas of guilty” as follows:
       Of Specification 1 of Charge I: Guilty;
       Of Specification 2 of Charge I: Guilty;
       Of Specification 4 of Charge I: Guilty;
       Of Charge I: Guilty.

                                       3
                    United States v. Graves, No. ACM 40340

       Of the Specification of Charge II: Guilty, except the words “pic-
       tures, videos, and;” of the excepted words: Not Guilty.
       Of Charge II: Guilty.
       ....
       Of Specification 1 of Charge III, and
       Of Charge III: Guilty.
After he announced findings, the military judge asked trial counsel whether he
had “a motion to make with regards to the remaining specifications and
charges.” Trial counsel replied, “The Government makes a motion to dismiss
Specification 3 of Charge I; Specification 2 of Charge III, the Specification of
Charge IV, and the Specification of Charge V, without prejudice.”4 With no de-
fense objection, the military judge granted the motion.
    The Statement of Trial Results—dated the same day as the court-martial—
and the EoJ reflect findings to the specifications to which Appellant pleaded
not guilty and which the Government moved to dismiss without prejudice. That
is, the entries on the EoJ for Specification 3 of Charge I, Specification 2 of
Charge III, and the specifications of Charges IV and V indicate (1) Appellant
pleaded not guilty, (2) Appellant was found not guilty, and (3) the specification
was “withdrawn and dismissed after arraignment (without prejudice).”
Charges IV and V also reflect that Appellant pleaded not guilty and was found
not guilty.
   Moreover, in both documents, the language of the offense alleged in the
Specification of Charge II (1) omits the words, “pictures, videos, and,” (2) indi-
cates a guilty plea without exceptions, and (3) indicates a guilty finding with-
out exceptions.
    The charge sheet reflects that on 26 May 2022, the same day as the court-
martial, (1) Specification 3 of Charge I, Specification 2 of Charge III, and
Charges IV and V and their specifications were “withdrawn and dismissed
without prejudice,” and (2) the words “pictures, videos, and” were lined out.
The initials next to the changes are the same as assistant trial counsel’s ini-
tials.

                                     II. LAW
   Proper completion of post-trial processing is a question of law that this
court reviews de novo. United States v. Sheffield, 60 M.J. 591, 593 (A.F. Ct.
Crim. App. 2004) (citing United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63 (2000)). The EoJ is

4 The Government did not specifically ask that Charges IV and V be dismissed.

                                         4
                     United States v. Graves, No. ACM 40340

part of a record of trial. See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1112(b)(9). “A
record of trial found to be incomplete or defective before or after certification
may be corrected to make it accurate.” R.C.M. 1112(d)(2). “The Judge Advocate
General, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the [United States] Court of Ap-
peals for the Armed Forces may modify a judgment in the performance of their
duties and responsibilities.” R.C.M. 1111(c)(2). “A superior competent author-
ity may return a record of trial to the military judge for correction under this
rule.” R.C.M. 1112(d)(2). “The Chief Trial Judge[, Air Force Trial Judiciary,]
has been delegated the authority to modify EoJs in accordance with R.C.M.
1111(c)(2), and may detail a subordinate trial judge to modify an EoJ in a par-
ticular case.” Department of the Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration
of Military Justice, ¶ 21.9.1 (14 Apr. 2022). “If a case is remanded to a military
judge, the military judge may modify the judgment consistent with the pur-
poses of the remand.” R.C.M. 1111(c)(3).
    “No person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same
offense.” Article 44(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 844(a). “Under the constitutional
and statutory protections against double jeopardy, an announced decision to
acquit is final. The decision cannot be impeached, and the accused cannot be
retried . . . .” United States v. Hardy, 46 M.J. 67, 73 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (citations
omitted).

                                  III. DISCUSSION
   The EoJ in this case does not appear to accurately reflect Appellant’s pleas
and the findings of the court-martial. We address the two sets of errors in turn.
    Appellant pleaded guilty by exceptions to the Specification of Charge II.
However, the EoJ indicates those excepted words were not part of the specifi-
cation when Appellant entered his pleas. More importantly, however, the mil-
itary judge found Appellant not guilty of those words. A not-guilty finding has
enduring consequences to the benefit of an accused, including the attachment
of jeopardy.5 The failure of the EoJ to reflect the not-guilty findings to the ex-
cepted words materially prejudices Appellant’s substantial right to former-
jeopardy protection.
    Next, the EoJ indicates that for certain specifications and charges (1) Ap-
pellant was found not guilty, and (2) they were withdrawn from the court-mar-
tial and dismissed without prejudice after arraignment. This scenario is not
only perplexing, it is contrary to the findings announced by the military judge.
Appellant was arraigned on those offenses, and entered pleas of not guilty; at

5 While the PA was clear the dismissals would be “without prejudice,” a not-guilty find-

ing is the equivalent of the words being dismissed “with prejudice.”

                                           5
                    United States v. Graves, No. ACM 40340

that point, our review of the record indicates they had not been withdrawn and
dismissed. The military judge did not enter a finding to those charges and spec-
ifications. The military judge granted the government motion to withdraw and
dismiss them, and the markings on the charge sheet indicate the Government
did so. As discussed supra, the result of a not-guilty finding is that Appellant
could not be re-tried for those offenses. If the offenses instead were dismissed
without prejudice, further prosecution is possible. From our read of the record,
it appears the “F[inding]” column of the EoJ for Specification 3 of Charge I,
Specification 2 of Charge III, and Charges IV and V and their specifications
should not state “NG” and instead state what appears in the next column:
“Withdrawn and dismissed after arraignment (without prejudice).”
   We decline to exercise authority under R.C.M. 1111(c)(2) to modify the con-
tents of the EoJ, or under Article 66(f)(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(f)(3), to order
a hearing. We determine the better approach is to allow a military judge under
R.C.M. 1111(c)(3) to ensure the EoJ accurately reflects the specifications,
pleas, and findings or other disposition of the offenses in Appellant’s case.

                                IV. CONCLUSION
    The record of trial is REMANDED to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial
Judiciary, for modification of the entry of judgment as noted above. Article
66(f)(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(f)(3); R.C.M. 1111(c)(3). We retain jurisdiction
and do not dismiss the appellate proceedings. See JT. CT. CRIM. APP. R. 29(b)(1).
    The military judge shall give notice of the proposed corrections to all parties
and permit them to examine and respond before finalizing modification to the
entry of judgment. R.C.M. 1112(d)(2). Thereafter, and not later than 22 Sep-
tember 2023, the record of trial will be returned to this court for completion
of appellate review under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866. Any motion for
leave to file a supplemental filing must be submitted not later than 14 days
after the record is returned to the court. See A.F. Ct. Crim. App. R. 18.4.6

                      FOR THE COURT

                      CAROL K. JOYCE
                      Clerk of the Court

6 As we are not returning the record to The Judge Advocate General, Article 66(g),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(g), and JT. CT. CRIM. APP. R. 18(d) are inapplicable. Addition-
ally, we are not ordering a hearing under Article 66(f), UCMJ. See JT. CT. CRIM. APP.
R. 29.

                                         6