United States v. Beltran, 201500270

Background

Appellant, a Navy chief, corresponded on Craigslist with an undercover detective posing as a 14-year-old girl (“Taylor”) and negotiated payment for sexual acts after Taylor repeatedly stated she was 14.
Appellant traveled to Hillcrest Park, searched the area for Taylor, and was arrested the next day; police seized condoms, lubrication, a Marshall’s gift card, and cash from his car.
At trial a panel convicted him of attempted lewd/sexual acts upon a child (Article 80, UCMJ); after findings the military judge conditionally dismissed Specification 1 and merged it with Specification 2.
Appellant raised four assignments of error: legal and factual insufficiency, denial of a challenge for cause to member LT G, sentence excessive, and error in the court-martial order (CMO).
The military judge denied the challenge for cause to LT G after voir dire in which LT G disclosed family and prior court-martial exposure to child sexual abuse but affirmed his ability to be impartial.
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed findings and sentence, ordered corrective action to the CMO to reflect dismissal/merger.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Legal & factual sufficiency of intent to commit sexual acts with a minor	Belonged to verify age first; lacked specific intent to have sex with a minor	Negotiations, explicit sexual messages, travel to meet, and items in car show specific intent and substantial step	Conviction upheld: evidence proves specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt
Denial of challenge for cause to LT G (bias)	LT G’s family history and prior court-martial created implied/prejudicial bias	LT G’s testimony was unequivocal; the military judge observed demeanor and found no actual or implied bias	Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion for actual bias; public would not reasonably perceive unfairness (no implied bias)
Sentence appropriateness (5 years confinement, dishonorable discharge)	Sentence too severe, not reflective of character or offense	Offense seriousness, facts, and 18-year service support punishment within statutory range	Sentence affirmed as appropriate after individualized review
CMO error (failure to reflect conditional dismissal and merger)	CMO doesn’t reflect the judge’s post-findings dismissal/merger	Error acknowledged; no prejudice to substantial rights but records must be accurate	Affirmed findings/sentence and ordered supplemental CMO correcting the record

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F.) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)
United States v. Day, 66 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F.) (legal sufficiency test)
United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A.) (sufficiency framework)
United States v. Barner, 56 M.J. 131 (C.A.A.F.) (drawing inferences for legal sufficiency)
United States v. Rankin, 63 M.J. 552 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.) (factual sufficiency standard)
United States v. Warden, 51 M.J. 78 (C.A.A.F.) (actual vs. implied bias concepts)
United States v. Armstrong, 54 M.J. 51 (C.A.A.F.) (review of member-bias issues)
United States v. Napoleon, 46 M.J. 279 (C.A.A.F.) (definition of actual bias)
United States v. Leonard, 63 M.J. 398 (C.A.A.F.) (abuse-of-discretion review for bias rulings)
United States v. Baker, 70 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F.) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
United States v. Bagstad, 68 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F.) (standard for implied-bias review)
United States v. Clay, 64 M.J. 274 (C.A.A.F.) (liberal grant mandate for defense challenges)
United States v. Rogers, 75 M.J. 270 (C.A.A.F.) (degree of deference on implied-bias rulings)
United States v. Daulton, 45 M.J. 212 (C.A.A.F.) (family victimization not per se disqualifying)
United States v. Terry, 64 M.J. 295 (C.A.A.F.) (no implied bias where past spousal assault had limited ongoing impact)
United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F.) (de novo review of sentence appropriateness)
United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A.) (purpose of sentence appropriateness review)
United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A.) (individualized sentencing consideration)
United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F.) (limitations on appellate clemency)