United States v. Alford
ACM 38992
| A.F.C.C.A. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- Appellant, an Air Force member stationed at RAF Mildenhall, engaged in sexual acts with two 15‑year‑old girls (EG and SS) multiple times between March–May 2015 and texted/arranged to meet a third 15‑year‑old (SW) while on leave in South Carolina in late May 2015.
- On 12 May 2015 Appellant’s commander, Maj JB, issued a written 90‑day no‑contact order prohibiting contact with anyone under 16; Appellant acknowledged receipt.
- Appellant pleaded guilty at a general court‑martial to willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer (Art. 90, UCMJ) and multiple violations of Article 120b (sexual acts with minors); military judge accepted the pleas and sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge, 3 years confinement, and reduction to E‑1.
- The stipulation of fact described a texting exchange on or about 27 May 2015 and a subsequent meeting at a grocery store; the specification alleged the no‑contact violation occurred “on divers occasions” between 23 May and 3 June 2015.
- During sentencing the Government introduced certified civilian convictions from South Carolina (including a 23 May 2015 conviction) and the prosecutor made several arguably improper factual assertions (e.g., referring to a victim as 14, stating Appellant “had sex” on particular dates).
- Appellant raised three appellate issues: sufficiency of the plea as to “divers occasions,” improper trial counsel sentencing argument (facts not in evidence), and facially unreasonable post‑trial delay under Moreno/Tardif.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of plea to violating order “on divers occasions” | Plea unsupported because evidence showed only a single violation | Stipulation, Appellant’s admissions, text exchange plus meeting support multiple violations | No abuse of discretion: factual basis adequate (text(s) + in‑person meeting imply multiple occasions) |
| Trial counsel’s reference to victim as 14 (age) during sentencing | Reference was factual misstatement not supported by evidence (victim shown to be 15) | Government suggested earlier conduct may have occurred when she was 14 | Ruling to overrule objection was an abuse of discretion but error was harmless; no material prejudice to sentence |
| Trial counsel’s assertion that civilian convictions involved “having sex” and identified SW as victim | These details were not in the certified convictions and injected facts not in evidence | Government relied on certified convictions showing criminal sexual conduct with minors as aggravation | Even if error, no material prejudice; military judge presumed to rely on evidence, not argument; no relief warranted |
| Post‑trial delay (Moreno/Tardif) | Delay between action and docketing exceeded Moreno timeline (facially unreasonable) warranting sentence reduction | Government offered no explanation; argued delay not prejudicial | Facial Moreno violation by one day; no due‑process prejudice found; Article 66(c)/Tardif relief denied (no meaningful harm or diminished disciplinary effect) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (establishes Moreno post‑trial delay presumptive timelines and Barker analysis trigger)
- United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (appellate courts may grant sentence relief for excessive post‑trial delay under Article 66(c))
- United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (military judge must obtain adequate factual basis for guilty pleas)
- United States v. Blouin, 74 M.J. 247 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (standard of review for acceptance of guilty pleas)
- United States v. Moon, 73 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (test for abuse of discretion in accepting pleas—substantial basis in law or fact)
- United States v. Frey, 73 M.J. 245 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (improper argument standard and assessing whether sentence was based on evidence alone)
- United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (presumption military judges follow law and distinguish argument from evidence)
- United States v. Roach, 69 M.J. 17 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (facially unreasonable delay triggers Barker analysis)
- United States v. Gay, 74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (factors to guide Article 66(c) relief for post‑trial delay)