United States v. Dunbar
2004 WL 2587129, 60 M.J. 748, 2004 CCA LEXIS 248 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a mutual misunderstanding regarding a material term of a pretrial agreement exists between the parties, the accused's guilty plea is rendered improvident. The military judge must remedy the situation by either conforming the agreement to the accused's understanding with the government's consent, or permitting the accused to withdraw the plea.
Facts:
- Appellant Dunbar committed larceny and made false claims against the United States.
- Dunbar entered into a pretrial agreement with the convening authority to plead guilty.
- The agreement stated that if Dunbar received an adjudged confinement of less than three months, it would be disapproved upon his submission of a request for an administrative separation (Chapter 10 discharge).
- A handwritten annotation, initialed by Dunbar, was added next to the administrative separation clause stating 'with an Other Than Honorable discharge.'
- Dunbar and his defense counsel interpreted this to mean that if he was sentenced to less than three months of confinement, he would receive an administrative 'Other Than Honorable' discharge in lieu of a punitive 'Bad-Conduct Discharge'.
- The trial counsel (prosecutor) interpreted the agreement to allow the convening authority to approve a bad-conduct discharge regardless of the administrative separation provision.
Procedural Posture:
- Dunbar pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to larceny and making false claims.
- Following the plea, the military judge convicted Dunbar and sentenced him to a bad-conduct discharge, two months confinement, and reduction to Private First Class E3.
- After the sentence was announced, trial defense counsel and trial counsel expressed conflicting interpretations of the pretrial agreement's discharge provision to the military judge.
- The military judge acknowledged the conflict but did not resolve it, stating the parties could 'agree to disagree'.
- The convening authority approved the bad-conduct discharge and reduction in rank but disapproved the confinement.
- Dunbar appealed the conviction and sentence to the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing his plea was improvident.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a guilty plea improvident when it is based on a pretrial agreement containing an ambiguous material term that was mutually misunderstood by the parties, and the military judge fails to resolve this misunderstanding on the record?
Opinions:
Majority - Schenck, J.
Yes. A guilty plea is improvident when it is based on a pretrial agreement containing an ambiguous material term that was mutually misunderstood by the parties, and the military judge fails to resolve this misunderstanding. Applying basic principles of contract law, the court found there was no 'meeting of the minds' regarding the discharge provision, which was a material term of the agreement. The defense's interpretation was rational, and they may have detrimentally relied upon it. The military judge had an affirmative duty under Rule for Courts-Martial 910(h)(3) to resolve the conflict once it became apparent post-sentencing. Instead, the judge allowed the parties to 'agree to disagree,' which failed to ensure the plea was knowing and voluntary. Because a plea's voluntariness depends on the fulfillment of the promises made, a mutual misunderstanding of those promises renders the plea improvident, requiring remedial action.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical role of the military judge in ensuring the providence of guilty pleas by actively resolving ambiguities in pretrial agreements. It solidifies the application of contract law principles, specifically the 'meeting of the minds' doctrine, to military plea bargains. The case serves as a precedent that a judge's failure to address a clear, on-the-record disagreement about a material plea term constitutes reversible error. This places a burden on military judges to be more than passive observers, requiring them to directly question the accused and conform the agreement or permit plea withdrawal to cure such defects.
