Court Opinion

ID: 7271174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-25 07:28:27.405932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:18:46.744140
License: Public Domain

CCA 201000242. Review granted on the following issues:
I. WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUS*209SELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
II. ALTHOUGH THE CRIME OF INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD TO WHICH APPELLANT PLEADED GUILTY WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CHARGED CRIME OF RAPE OF A CHILD AND THUS HAD NOT BEEN FORMALLY REFERRED TO TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY, WHETHER APPELLANT WAIVED SUCH IRREGULARITY BY PLEADING GUILTY UNDER A PRETRIAL AGREEMENT TO INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, WHERE NEITHER THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT NOR APPELLANT’S PLEA AT ARRAIGNMENT EXPRESSLY SET FORTH EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT FOR AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION, BUT BOTH ELEMENTS WERE DISCUSSED AND ADMITTED DURING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.