United States v. Estes
2005 WL 2839990, 2005 CCA LEXIS 328, 62 M.J. 544 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A military judge does not abuse their discretion by accepting a guilty plea without inquiring into an accused's mental responsibility when the only potential indicator is an unsworn statement expressing religious sentiment. Furthermore, a soldier is absent from their 'unit' for the purposes of an AWOL charge when they are not with their fellow soldiers performing military duties, even if they remain physically within the barracks.
Facts:
- Over a five-month period from December 2001 to May 2002, the appellant used marijuana, cocaine, and MDMA on multiple occasions.
- The appellant was also absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit on two separate occasions.
- During one specific four-day period of absence, from June 7 to June 11, 2002, the appellant was required to attend formations and perform duties with his unit.
- Instead of reporting for duty, the appellant stayed in his barracks room located in building H-5412, slept late, and wandered around the post to the mess hall and shoppette.
- The appellant knew that his unit, located at building H-6308, was working and that he was supposed to be with his fellow soldiers.
- During his sentencing hearing, the appellant made an unsworn statement about finding God on August 6, 1996, reading the Bible, and knowing God would forgive his sins.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant pleaded guilty before a military judge sitting as a special court-martial.
- The military judge found the appellant guilty of two specifications of AWOL and multiple specifications of wrongful drug use.
- The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence.
- The appellant appealed his conviction to the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
- While the appeal was pending, the appellate court ordered a series of three sanity boards to inquire into the appellant's mental state after the defense raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a military judge abuse their discretion by accepting an accused's guilty plea without further inquiry when the accused's unsworn statement expressing strong religious sentiment is the only potential indicator of a mental health issue, and when the accused admits to not being with his unit performing duties but claims he remained in his barracks?
Opinions:
Majority - Schenck, S.J.
No, the military judge did not abuse his discretion. A judge's acceptance of a guilty plea will not be overturned unless there is a 'substantial basis' in law and fact to question it. The appellant’s unsworn statement about his religious conversion did not constitute a matter inconsistent with his plea that would trigger the judge's duty to inquire further into his mental state; it merely expressed remorse and religious sentiment. The court also considered post-trial sanity board reports and found they did not meet the high threshold required for a rehearing, which demands a showing that a factfinder would likely be persuaded to accept an insanity defense, not merely that the evidence casts doubt. Regarding the AWOL charge, the plea was provident because a 'unit' is comprised of its personnel performing duties, not a physical building. By admitting he missed all formations and was 'goofing off' in the barracks while his unit was working elsewhere, the appellant provided a sufficient factual basis for being absent from his unit.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for a military judge's duty to inquire into an accused's mental competency during a guilty plea, establishing that generic expressions of religious faith, without more, are not 'inconsistent matters' requiring further inquiry. The ruling also reinforces a functional, rather than geographical, definition of a 'unit' for the offense of AWOL, solidifying precedent that a soldier's duty is to be present with their fellow personnel, and merely remaining in the barracks does not negate an unauthorized absence. This sets a high bar for appellants seeking to overturn a plea on appeal using post-trial evidence of mental illness, requiring a strong showing that the new evidence would likely have changed the trial's outcome.
