United States v. Goodman
2011 CAAF LEXIS 1053
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Appellant pled guilty to multiple offenses under the UCMJ in exchange for a cap on confinement; the military judge convicted him of wrongful sexual contact despite the plea and sentenced him accordingly.
- The specifications included indecent exposure and bigamy under Article 134, UCMJ, and the case proceeded to appeal after the convening authority approved the sentence with some reductions.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed most convictions but did not address the Fosler issue, remanding for Fosler-based consideration.
- On review, the Court held the military judge did not err in the plea but remanded to determine if the indecent exposure and bigamy specifications state offenses under Fosler.
- The concurrence dissents on the granted issue, arguing the plea should be set aside due to failure to resolve potential mistake-of-fact defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to advise on mistake of fact requires setting aside plea | Goodman argues inconsistency merits relief | Government argues no substantial basis to question plea | No; plea not substantially questioned |
| Whether indecent exposure and bigamy specs state offenses under Article 134 | Goodman contends lack of terminal elements state offenses | Government seeks Fosler-based review | Remanded for Fosler-based determination |
| Whether plea inquiry raised mistake of fact and required disclaimer | Goodman claims inquiries raised defense | No adequate resolution or disclaimer obtained | Affirmed as to convictions; remanded for Fosler determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. United States, 44 M.J. 496 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (necessity of a factual basis for guilty pleas and resolving inconsistencies)
- Phillippe v. United States, 63 M.J. 307 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (substantial basis test for plea consistency)
- Inabinette v. United States, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (substantial basis standard for challenging pleas)
- Schweitzer v. United States, 68 M.J. 133 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (review of guilty findings after plea when possible inconsistencies exist)
- Roane v. United States, 43 M.J. 93 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (definition of substantial inconsistency in plea context)
- Penister v. United States, 25 M.J. 148 (C.M.A. 1987) (admonitions on deciphering rationalizations during plea)