United States v. Blair
ACM S32328
| A.F.C.C.A. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Appellant (Airman Sierra L. Blair) pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to multiple offenses including wrongful use and possession of hydrocodone (≈95 pills), multiple marijuana uses, dereliction, failure to go, and a false official statement; sentence: bad-conduct discharge, 30 days confinement, reduction to E‑1.
- Appellant obtained an initial valid hydrocodone prescription under a pain‑management agreement requiring disclosure of other prescriptions; thereafter she obtained additional prescriptions from multiple providers without disclosing existing prescriptions.
- Appellant admitted she intentionally misled prescribing physicians, was addicted, and used the hydrocodone more frequently and for non‑medical purposes.
- Military judge accepted guilty pleas; the convening authority approved the sentence. Appellant appealed arguing (1) her possession/use of hydrocodone was not wrongful because she had prescriptions, and (2) the sentence was inappropriately severe.
- The court found the additional prescriptions invalid because they were procured by deceit and the pills were used for non‑medical purposes, and thus possession/use were wrongful; it also found the sentence appropriate given the offenses and record.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Providency of plea to wrongful possession/use of hydrocodone | Prescription(s) facially valid so possession/use not wrongful | Prescriptions procured by deceit and pills used for non‑medical purposes, so possession/use were wrongful | Pleas provident; scienter and misuse negate prescription defense |
| Effect of obtaining prescriptions by fraud (scienter) | West purportedly eliminates scienter for prescription defense | West does not eliminate scienter; knowingly misleading prescribers invalidates authorization | Court rejects appellant's reading of West; scienter is required and defeats prescription defense when deceit is shown |
| Sentence appropriateness | Personal mitigating circumstances (sexual assault, PTSD, PEB findings) make BCD excessive | Sentence within negotiated limits and appropriate based on offenses and record | Sentence affirmed as appropriate |
| Administrative error in court-martial order | (Not appealed) | Court notes mistaken notation of not‑guilty plea | Directs publication of corrected court-martial order |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. West, 34 C.M.R. 449 (C.M.A. 1964) (discusses prescription authorization and scienter in narcotics possession)
- United States v. Greenwood, 6 C.M.A. 209 (C.M.A. 1955) (early precedent on prescription/possessory defenses and knowledge)
- United States v. Pariso, 65 M.J. 722 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2007) (prescription for invalid purposes does not legitimize controlled-substance possession/use)
- United States v. Moore, 24 C.M.R. 647 (A.F.B.R. 1957) (controlled substances prescribed for invalid purposes provide no criminal authorization)
- United States v. Care, 40 C.M.R. 247 (C.M.A. 1983) (standards for provident pleas and admissible stipulations of fact)