United States v. Delaney
201700108
| N.M.C.C.A. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Appellant pled guilty at general court-martial to false official statement, wrongful use of a Schedule I drug, viewing child pornography, and obstruction; sentenced to reduction to E‑1, total forfeitures, 13 months confinement, and a bad‑conduct discharge; CA approved 12 months confinement and the discharge per PTA.
- NCIS investigated appellant’s online sexual interactions with two teenage girls (≥16); he took screenshots and later told one girl to delete evidence after an NCIS interview.
- Charges were preferred 13 Oct 2016 and an additional drug charge on 28 Nov 2016. Appellant was placed on pretrial restriction 14 Nov 2016; a less‑onerous restriction order issued 8 Dec 2016 and remained in effect until sentencing 18 Jan 2017.
- First restriction ordered regular musters (multiple times daily), limited liberty to certain areas, prohibited alcohol, civilian clothes, visitors, driving, and restricted use of some facilities; appellant later asserted additional duties, room checks, escorts, and smoking limited to a visible pit.
- Defense counsel admitted the restriction orders into evidence and argued them for mitigation; defense did not object or seek Mason (day‑for‑day) credit at trial, raising the issue for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial restriction was tantamount to confinement entitling appellant to Mason credit | Restriction conditions equated to confinement (day‑for‑day credit) | Conditions were reasonable restriction to ensure presence, safety, and unit welfare; not confinement | Not tantamount to confinement; no Mason credit awarded |
| Whether military judge plain erred by not addressing R.C.M. 305(k) requirements/remedy | Judge failed to consider R.C.M. 305(k) when restrictions equated to confinement | R.C.M. 305(k) applies only if restriction is tantamount to confinement; here it was not | Moot because restriction not tantamount to confinement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mason, 19 M.J. 274 (C.M.A. 1985) (pretrial restraint tantamount to confinement can warrant day‑for‑day credit)
- United States v. King, 58 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (totality test and factors for assessing whether restriction equals confinement)
- United States v. Parker, 75 M.J. 603 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (failure to seek Mason credit at trial is forfeiture absent plain error)
- United States v. Smith, 20 M.J. 528 (A.C.M.R. 1985) (example of restrictive conditions warranting confinement credit)
- United States v. Blye, 37 M.J. 92 (C.M.A. 1993) (restriction to prevent alcohol use lawful)
- United States v. Guerrero, 28 M.J. 223 (C.M.A. 1989) (certain barracks restriction plus escorts/musters not tantamount to confinement)
- United States v. Davis, 76 M.J. 224 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (plain‑error test standards for military appeals)
- United States v. Bungert, 62 M.J. 346 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (failure to prove any plain‑error prong is fatal)
- United States v. Rendon, 58 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (R.C.M. 305 applies only when restriction is tantamount to confinement)