Court Opinion

ID: 9836864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:16.524119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.099617
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge CRAWFORD
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Pursuant to his pleas, appellant was convicted of a single charge and specification of being absent without leave for about 7 months, terminated by apprehension, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. The military judge, sitting as a special court-martial (SPCM) empowered to adjudge a bad-conduct discharge (BCD), sentenced him to a BCD, confinement for 75 days, forfeiture of $550.00 pay per month for 2 months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. In consonance with the pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved the sentence, but suspended confinement in excess of 60 days and forfeiture of pay in excess of $150.00 pay per *27month for 4 months for a period of 6 months from the trial date. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.
We granted review of the following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE RECORD OF TRIAL IS SUBSTANTIALLY INCOMPLETE YET STILL SUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.
We hold that the lower court erred by affirming a sentence that included a BCD because missing exhibits render the record of trial substantially incomplete.
Appellant’s record of trial is missing (a) the charge sheet; (b) the court-martial convening order; (c) the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR); and (d) the three defense exhibits and the three appellate exhibits admitted at trial. A complete record of trial would include these missing documents. Art. 54(c)(1)(B), UCMJ, 10 USC § 854(c)(1)(B); RCM 1103(b)(2)(D), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.). See United States v. Santoro, 46 MJ 344 (1997).
In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that the missing documents made the record “substantially incomplete,” unpub. op. at 2, thus raising the rebuttable “presumption of prejudice.” See United States v. Gray, 7 MJ 296, 298 (CMA 1979). Whether an omission from a record of trial is “substantial” is a question of law which we review de novo.
Upon review of the approved findings of guilty, we find no substantial omissions from the record of trial that could prejudice appellant. However, we find that the Government has failed to rebut this presumption of prejudice as to appellant’s sentence. See Art. 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859(a).
With regard to the guilty determination, the verbatim record of trial conclusively establishes the proper preferral and referral to a SPCM. This record shows service of the charge on appellant subsequent to its referral. After appellant’s guilty plea, the military judge conducted a thorough providence inquiry. RCM 910(c); see also United States v. Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247, 1969 WL 6059 (1969). The pretrial agreement (Appellate Exhibits I and II) was admitted and a meticulous inquiry by the military judge ensures us that appellant understood its ramifications. RCM 910(f).
Although the record of trial renders these omissions non-prejudicial as to the findings, the Government has failed to show that the same is true for appellant’s sentence. Sentencing proceedings were brief. The Government introduced no evidence. Trial defense counsel introduced Defense Exhibits A, B, and C without further identification or any objection from opposing counsel. Appellant made an unsworn, seven-word statement: “That I’d like to go home, sir.” Trial counsel argued that appellant lacked rehabilitation potential and should be separated from the Marine Corps and sent to confinement for not less than 75 days. Defense counsel argued for a sentence of 45 days’ confinement. After pronouncing sentence, the military judge asked appellant about his appellate rights, ensured appellant understood them, and ordered that Appellate Exhibit III, appellant’s signed appellate rights statement, be appended to the record of trial.
Unlike the court below, we will not “presume” what information was contained in Defense Exhibits A, B, and C. These exhibits were never referred to again after their introduction or otherwise identified in the record of trial. The failure to include Defense Exhibits A, B, and C in the record of trial constitutes a substantial omission. As the Government has failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice from the exhibits’ absence or show their omission to be harmless error, appellant may not receive a sentence that includes a BCD. See Art. 19, UCMJ, 10 USC § 819; RCM 1103(b)(2)(B)(ii).
The Court of Criminal Appeals found, pursuant to its Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 USC § 866(c)(1994), factfinding power that “a SJAR existed and was relied upon by the convening authority, in accordance with Article 60(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 860(d)(1994).” Unpub. op. at 3. Thus, this case is unlike the situation in United States v. Mark, 47 MJ 99, 100 (1997), where the lower court relied on a presump*28tion of regularity to find that the SJAR was published. As we have already determined that the absence of three defense exhibits from this record constitutes a substantial omission, we need not decide whether this particular SJAR’s absence from the record, in and of itself, amounts to a substantial omission warranting relief.
We conclude that it is appropriate to finalize this case now in lieu of returning this record to the Court of Criminal Appeals for sentence reassessment and prolonging litigation which began with trial on February 23, 1994.
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to findings and only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for 75 days, forfeiture of $550.00 pay per month for 2 months, and reduction to pay grade E-l (as suspended) is affirmed.