United States v. Mizgala
2005 WL 1252197, 2005 CAAF LEXIS 525, 61 M.J. 122 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A litigated motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial under Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is not waived by a subsequent unconditional guilty plea, thereby preserving the issue for appellate review.
Facts:
- Airman First Class Patrick A. Mizgala went absent without leave (AWOL) and, upon his return, confessed to using cocaine.
- Mizgala went AWOL a second time, became involved in an off-base attempted theft, and upon return confessed to using both cocaine and marijuana.
- On February 28, 2001, Mizgala was placed in pretrial confinement, where a hearing officer determined he was a flight risk.
- During Mizgala's confinement, the base legal office was operating out of a temporary facility due to a fire.
- On April 16, 2001, after being confined for 47 days, Mizgala made a formal request for a speedy trial.
- The government took several weeks to obtain urinalysis litigation packets, a police report regarding the off-base attempted theft, and confirmation that civilian authorities would not prosecute.
- Charges were preferred against Mizgala on May 14, 2001, seventy-five days after his confinement began.
- Mizgala was held in pretrial confinement for a total of 117 days before being released on June 21, 2001, after which he went AWOL again.
Procedural Posture:
- Mizgala was tried by a general court-martial.
- At the trial court level, Mizgala filed a motion to dismiss the charges for lack of a speedy trial under Article 10, UCMJ.
- The military judge denied the motion.
- Following the denial of his motion, Mizgala entered unconditional guilty pleas to numerous offenses.
- The convening authority approved the findings and sentence, though he reduced the amount of forfeitures.
- Mizgala appealed to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that Mizgala had waived his speedy trial claim by pleading guilty unconditionally.
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 an unconditional guilty plea waive an accused's right to appeal a previously litigated motion to dismiss for a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 10, UCMJ?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Erdmann
No. An unconditional guilty plea does not waive the right to appeal a litigated speedy trial motion under Article 10, UCMJ. The court reasoned that Congress intended Article 10 to provide a 'more exacting' speedy trial demand for service members in pretrial confinement than is provided by the Sixth Amendment or other federal statutes. Unlike the Sixth Amendment right, the right under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 707, or the federal Speedy Trial Act, which are all waived by a guilty plea, the fundamental nature of the Article 10 right and the legislative intent to prevent service members from languishing in confinement justify preserving the issue for appeal even after a guilty plea.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Judge Crawford
Yes. An unconditional plea of guilty should waive an accused's speedy trial rights under Article 10, UCMJ. This opinion argues that the majority overlooks that Article 10 and similar UCMJ provisions were enacted primarily because of historical uncertainty about whether the Bill of Rights applied to service members. Mainstream jurisprudence and the plain language of Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 707(e), which explicitly states that a guilty plea waives 'any' speedy trial issue, should control, and there is no compelling reason to create a special exception for Article 10.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Article 10 of the UCMJ as providing uniquely robust speedy trial protection within the military justice system, elevating it above its civilian counterparts and other military rules. By creating an exception to the general waiver-by-guilty-plea doctrine, the court allows an accused to accept responsibility without forfeiting a meritorious speedy trial claim that was already litigated and denied. This holding increases the government's accountability for pretrial delays involving confined service members and provides a strategic avenue for defendants to preserve appellate rights while still potentially gaining the benefits of a guilty plea.
