Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
United States v. Jones., NMCCA 23 December 2020.
Appellant challenged the providence of his guilty pleas, alleged an abuse of discretion with the admission of various sentencing exhibits; and (again) an error in the entry of judgement. The findings and sentence were affirmed, but an amended EoJ was ordered.
The issue appears to come from Appellant’s inability to remember the exact places where his distribution and use of controlled substances happened and to whom. The NMCCA found that where and to whom is not a substantial enough inconsistency with the charged offense because those “facts” are not elements of the offenses. The NMCCA did impliedly suggest that the various “inconsistencies” could have been resolved by the MJ asking more direct and specific follow-up questions.
On the sentencing exhibits the NMCCA takes a broad view of what is part of a continuous course of context properly putting Appellant’s charged offenses in context. The NMCCA adopts the MJ’s use of United States v. Ross, 34 M.J. 183 (C.M.A. 1992) as a rationale.