Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    United States v. Nelson, C.A.A.F. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case, U.S. v. Nelson, in which the defendant Jason Nelson appealed his conviction on several charges. The military judge had denied Nelson's motion to prevent statements from his guilty plea on one charge (AWOL) from being used to prove other unrelated charges. As a result, Nelson withdrew his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Nelson did not properly preserve this issue for appeal since he did not actually enter a guilty plea. The court remanded the case to determine if Nelson was entitled to relief under another precedent, but otherwise upheld his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Nelson, C.A.A.F. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    20 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a court case, U.S. v. Nelson, in which the defendant Jason Nelson appealed his conviction on several charges. The military judge had denied Nelson's motion to prevent statements from his guilty plea on one charge (AWOL) from being used to prove other unrelated charges. As a result, Nelson withdrew his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Nelson did not properly preserve this issue for appeal since he did not actually enter a guilty plea. The court remanded the case to determine if Nelson was entitled to relief under another precedent, but otherwise upheld his conviction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-09-01 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 98-1109/AR

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case, U.S. v. Nelson, in which the defendant Jason Nelson appealed his conviction on several charges. The military judge had denied Nelson's motion to prevent statements from his guilty plea on one charge (AWOL) from being used to prove other unrelated charges. As a result, Nelson withdrew his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Nelson did not properly preserve this issue for appeal since he did not actually enter a guilty plea. The court remanded the case to determine if Nelson was entitled to relief under another precedent, but otherwise upheld his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    20 views4 pages

    United States v. Nelson, C.A.A.F. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case, U.S. v. Nelson, in which the defendant Jason Nelson appealed his conviction on several charges. The military judge had denied Nelson's motion to prevent statements from his guilty plea on one charge (AWOL) from being used to prove other unrelated charges. As a result, Nelson withdrew his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Nelson did not properly preserve this issue for appeal since he did not actually enter a guilty plea. The court remanded the case to determine if Nelson was entitled to relief under another precedent, but otherwise upheld his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    U.S. v.

    Nelson
    United States, Appellee
    v.
    Jason E. NELSON, Private
    U.S. Army, Appellant

    No. 98-1109
    Crim. App. No. 9601144

    United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces


    Argued June 2, 1999
    Decided September 1, 1999
    CRAWFORD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which COX, C.J., and
    SULLIVAN, GIERKE, and EFFRON, JJ., joined.
    Counsel
    For Appellant: Captain Donald P. Chisholm (argued); Colonel John T. Phelps II,
    Lieutenant Colonel Adele H. Odegard, and Captain Kirsten V. Campbell-Brunson
    (on brief); Major Holly S.G. Coffey and Captain Paul Fiorino.
    For Appellee: Captain Arthur J. Coulter (argued); Colonel Russell S. Estey,
    Lieutenant Colonel Eugene R. Milhizer, and Major Patricia A. Ham (on brief).
    Military Judge: Larry R. Dean

    THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION BEFORE


    FINAL PUBLICATION.

    Judge CRAWFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.


    Contrary to his pleas, appellant was convicted by officer members of absence

    without leave (AWOL), larceny (3 specifications), forgery (6 specifications),


    altering a military identification card, and false use of a military identification card,
    in violation of Articles 86, 121, 123, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10
    USC 886, 921, 923, and 934, respectively. The convening authority approved
    the sentence of a dishonorable discharge, 4 years confinement, total forfeitures,
    reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, and a reprimand. The Court of Criminal
    Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence without an opinion. We granted review
    of the following issue:
    WHETHER APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE MILITARY
    JUDGES CLEARLY ERRONEOUS MISSTATEMENT OF THE
    LAW WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE STATED THAT THE
    GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE STATEMENTS
    DURING APPELLANTS CARE INQUIRY TO PROVE UP
    UNRELATED CHARGES AND, AS A RESULT OF HIS
    MISSTATEMENT OF THE LAW, APPELLANT WITHDREW HIS
    GUILTY PLEA TO THE A.W.O.L. CHARGE, AND WAS THUS
    UNABLE TO USE HIS GUILTY PLEA AS A MATTER IN
    EXTENUATION AND MITIGATION.
    We hold that appellant has not preserved this issue.1
    FACTS
    Appellant sought to enter a plea of guilty to AWOL. However, before entering the
    plea, appellant made a motion in limine to preclude the use of his statements made
    during the providence inquiry on the merits to prove up the other offenses. The
    judge denied this motion, stating that if the evidence was relevant and could be
    appropriately proven, he would allow it. As a result of this ruling, appellant
    withdrew his plea of guilty to the AWOL charge.
    Defense appellate counsel argues that because of the judges erroneous ruling,
    appellant could not enter a guilty plea, which would have been crucial evidence in
    extenuation and mitigation.
    DISCUSSION
    The military, not having an Alford2 plea, has a detailed procedure that must be
    followed before a military judge can accept a guilty plea, ensuring that an innocent
    person does not plead guilty. The judge must inform the accused personally of the
    nature of the offenses; of any mandatory minimum punishment; of the maximum
    punishment; of the right to representation by counsel; of the right to plead not
    guilty; and that the plea is a waiver of certain important rights, including the rights

    of confrontation and cross-examination. RCM 910(c), Manual for Courts-Martial,


    United States (1998 ed.). To ensure that there is a factual basis for the plea, the
    accused must answer questions under oath in the presence of counsel that satisfy the
    judge that the plea is provident. RCM 910(d) and (e). The judge also must
    determine that the plea of guilty results from the accused's own willingness to plead
    guilty and that he has not been coerced in any way. Id.
    After acceptance of the plea, the accused is entitled to the benefits of such a plea
    during sentencing by members, that is, the court members are instructed: "A plea of
    guilty is a matter in mitigation which must be considered along with all other facts
    and circumstances of the case. Time, effort, and expense to the government (have
    been) (usually are) saved by a plea of guilty. Such a plea may be the first step
    towards rehabilitation." Military Judges' Benchbook at 101 (Dept. of the Army
    Pamphlet 27-9)(30 September 1996)).
    As to the use in sentencing of an accuseds statements made during a providence
    inquiry, we have stated: "[T]here is no demonstrative right or wrong way to
    introduce evidence taken during a guilty plea inquiry.... The judge should permit the
    parties ultimately to choose a method of presentation." United States v. Figura, 44
    MJ 308, 310 (1996). Since appellant did not enter a plea of guilty here, there is no
    record from which to determine whether the Government would have introduced the
    evidence, what the evidence would have been, and, assuming there was a violation
    of appellants right, how it would have impacted on appellant. See Luce v. United
    States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984); United States v. Gee, 39 MJ 311 (CMA 1994).
    Thus, we hold that appellant has not preserved the issue of whether any statement
    made during his providence inquiry could be considered as to unrelated charges. Cf.
    United States v. Gray, 51 MJ 1, 25 (1999); United States v. Figura, supra.
    The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The
    record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to that court,
    which will consider whether appellant is within the class of persons who were
    entitled to relief under United States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370 (1997). If the court
    concludes that appellant is within such class, the court will refer the case to the
    Judge Advocate General for determination as to the amount of relief that is
    warranted, if any. The decision on remand will be provided directly to this Court
    when the decision becomes final. If the court concludes that appellant is not within
    such class, the record will be returned directly to this Court for further review.
    FOOTNOTES:
    1

    The second issue, however, requires us to remand the case. United States v.
    Messner, No. 98-1013, ___ MJ ___ (April 29, 1999).

    North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).


    Home Page | Opinions & Digest | Daily Journal | Public Notice of
    Hearings

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy