United States v. Christopher
201600249
| N.M.C.C.A. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Appellant D’Urville A. Christopher, a long‑service sailor, was investigated after his step‑daughter (EH) alleged sexual and physical abuse from 2000–2007; an NCIS pretext call captured admissions.
- The command placed Christopher on legal hold in April 2014 while he was also undergoing medical retirement processing; he nevertheless received a DD‑214 in error in June 2014 that was later corrected.
- At trial Christopher initially pled guilty—by exceptions—to a lesser‑included assault (touching EH) but during providence said the act occurred in July 2003 (pre‑statute change) not June 2004 (charged date); the guilty plea was later withdrawn.
- Members convicted Christopher of three assault‑by‑battery specifications (two against his biological children from 2000–2001, one against EH in 2006) and one indecent‑acts specification (EH, 2004). Post‑trial the judge dismissed two 2000–2001 convictions as time‑barred; one other conviction’s date was disputed.
- The NMCCA held the court‑martial had personal jurisdiction (the DD‑214 was issued in error while commander had placed him on legal hold) but found trial defense counsel ineffective for failing to recognize and act on statute‑of‑limitations bars; the court set aside findings and authorized a rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (was appellant validly retired?) | Christopher: DD‑214 made him retired; CA lacked power to refer charges without SecNav authorization. | Court/ Govt: Commander properly placed appellant on legal hold; the DD‑214 was issued in error and did not terminate jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction attached; DD‑214 was invalid because command took timely legal‑hold action and regulations suspend retirement processing for disciplinary matters. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for statute‑of‑limitations advice | Christopher: TDT misadvised that the extended Article 43 statute applied, so they failed to move to dismiss time‑barred charges and mismanaged pleas/trial strategy. | Govt: Conceded deficient performance but argued no reversible prejudice. | Counsel performance was deficient; prejudice shown — reasonable probability of different result; relief warranted. |
| Acceptance/withdrawal of guilty plea tied to date issue | Christopher: Plea accepted without advising/applying statute‑of‑limitations; the date discrepancy (2003 v. 2004) was dispositive. | Govt: Military judge instructed members to disregard withdrawn plea; factual evidence supported 2004 finding. | Military judge erred in process. Defense failed to exploit the date issue; prejudice resulted because plea and trial strategy were affected. |
| Remedy | Christopher: Vacate convictions and dismiss or order new trial. | Govt: Limited; sought to keep convictions not barred by statute. | Findings and sentence set aside; rehearing authorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ali, 71 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- United States v. Hart, 66 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (elements for valid discharge)
- Smith v. Vanderbush, 47 M.J. 56 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (discharge may terminate jurisdiction if commander lawfully discharges after being informed)
- United States v. Ratliff, 67 M.J. 2 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (resolution of retroactivity issue for Article 43 amendments)
- United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (Article 43 non‑retroactivity ruling)
- United States v. Davis, 60 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (counsel’s failure to determine correct law can warrant relief)
- United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (standards for reviewing ineffective assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance test)
- United States v. Thompson, 59 M.J. 432 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (military judge’s duty to advise accused about statute‑of‑limitations rights)