Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
v.
Daniel R. PERRON, Boatswains Mate Second Class
U.S. Coast Guard, Appellee
No. 02-0168
Crim. App. No. 1115
B. Schroder
He
Consistent with
United
Id. at 599.
II.
As a
2.
It also
Id.
The
Id.
Id. at 599.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Appellant then
Where
Courts have
Brady
Where a plea
McCarthy,
465.
The military justice system imposes even stricter
standards on military judges with regards to guilty pleas
than those imposed on federal civilian judges.
See United
In
18 C.M.A. at 541-42.
10
11
12
Under our
The
13
Id. at 81.
Id. at 82.
Mitchell disagreed.
He asserted
Id.
Id.
Id.
On the other
14
Id.
Id.
at 83.
In Smith, we again had occasion to decide whether an
accused had been deprived of the benefit of his bargain
because of a misunderstanding regarding the effect of a
term in his pretrial agreement.
56 M.J. at 273.
Similar
Id.
Id. at 276.
Id. at 277.
Id. at 279.
We
15
16
Specifically the
See Lane v.
17
Kingsley
18
It
19
Furthermore,
Imposing remedies on an
of constitutional rights.
An
accused can use them wisely or unwisely, but they are the
accuseds to exercise or waive.
20
accuseds consent.
Compelling an accused to accept unwanted remedies as
relief for a failed plea agreement may also result in
erroneous conclusions of voluntariness.
Determining
result where the accused himself assures the court that his
plea is voluntary.
21
Significantly,
At this stage,
22
But the
This case
Imposing
An
23
An
This does not mean that a convening authority can impose alternative
relief on an appellant. The same principles precluding the courts of
criminal appeals from imposing alternative relief on an appellant
prevent a convening authority from taking such action.
24
25
The
For these
Id. at 260-61.
As a result, even
Even if a defendant
And the
See Jay M.
See
Art. 58b(a)(2002),
However,
See Art.
United States v.
Two of those
be used for.
See generally John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo, The Law of Contracts
414-16 (4th ed. 1998)(only when time is of the essence does delay constitute
a material breach).
I note that the pretrial agreement did state it would terminate in a variety
of other situations, demonstrating that when Appellant and the convening
authority agreed to such a condition, they included it in their agreement.
5
This Courts decisions in United States v. Williams, 53 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F.
2000), and United States v. Hardcastle, 53 M.J. 299 (C.A.A.F. 2000), are not
In each, as in
Id. at 279
from Mitchell and Smith is that Appellant states the only remedy
that will satisfy him is withdrawal of his pleas, whereas the
appellants in Mitchell and Smith were silent in that regard.
But that is a distinction without a difference, because the law
is abundantly clear - the choice of remedy rests with the
courts, and the fact an otherwise appropriate remedy is not an
appellants remedy of choice does not compel a different result,
because it does not offend due process in light of societys
compelling interest in supporting and enforcing plea agreements.