United States v. CAULFIELD
72 M.J. 690
USCG CCA2013Background
- Appellant was tried by special court-martial, pleading guilty via a pretrial agreement.
- Convicted of: attempted wrongful possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute; conspiracy to possess oxycodone with intent to distribute; violating a lawful order; wrongful use of cocaine; dishonorably failing to pay a debt.
- Sentence: ten months’ confinement, reduction to E-1, bad-conduct discharge; Convening Authority partially approved and suspended confinement beyond 45 days.
- Appellant assigns three errors: multiplicity/double jeopardy for attempt vs. conspiracy; unreasonable post-trial delay in sentencing/referral; and a possibly defective conspiracy specification.
- Military judge found the attempt and conspiracy specifications were multiplicitous for sentencing and limited sentencing consideration to the conspiracy, then affirmed overall findings and sentence.
- CAAF majority affirming; Norris concurs in result noting waiver of multiplicity and denying post-trial relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are attempt and conspiracy multiplicious for sentencing? | Appellant argues double jeopardy via multiplicity. | Government argues no multiplicity under elements test; Campbell/Quiroz guide. | Not multiplicious under elements test; but found to be multiplicitous for sentencing; sentence not disturbed. |
| Was there unreasonable multiplication of charges for sentencing? | Appellant contends the two specs inflate punishment. | Government contends ambiguity resolved; multiplexing allowed to address liability. | Military judge did not abuse discretion; declined to reconsider findings or sentence on multiplicity grounds. |
| Is the conspiracy specification defective for omitting wrongful-object language? | Omission of wrongful-ness language in conspiracy spec. | Agreement-based conspiracy to possess oxycodone suffices; not defective. | Specification not defective; drafting guidance urged to include well-established words of criminality. |
| Did post-trial delay require sentence relief under Barker/ Moreno/Tardif? | Delay in referral may be unreasonable and prejudicial. | Delay largely minimal; Coast Guard procedures explained; no prejudice shown. | No due process violation; no relief under Tardif; Barker four-factor analysis supported no relief. |
| Should the multiplicity issue have been waived as part of the pretrial agreement? | Waiver not explicit regarding multiplicity challenge. | Waiver explicit; issue barred on appeal. | Appellant waived the multiplicity challenge; review limited accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Norwood, 71 M.J. 204 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (elements need not be described with technical precision for conspiracy)
- United States v. Bryant, 30 M.J. 72 (C.M.A. 1990) (omission of words of criminality cautionary about charges)
- United States v. Paxton, 64 M.J. 484 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (multiplicity review de novo; Blockburger test applied)
- United States v. Teters, 37 M.J. 370 (C.M.A. 1993) (distinct offenses require proof of additional facts)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (each offense requires proof of an additional fact)
- United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (factors for unreasonable multiplication of charges)
- United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Quiroz factors guide unreasonable multiplication analysis)
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (presumptive Barker four-factor analysis for post-trial delay)
- United States v. Matako, No. 24454 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. Mar. 20, 2012) (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2012) (relief for delay under Tardif considerations cited)
- United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (waiver effect after explicit waiver of multiplicity motion)