United States v. Hines
2014 CAAF LEXIS 187
| C.A.A.F. | 2014Background
- Appellee Shawn M. Hines, a Sergeant in the U.S. Army, was convicted by general court-martial of two specifications of making a false official statement and three specifications of Article 121 offenses (two larcenies and one wrongful appropriation) related to BAH and FSA entitlements over multiple months.
- The offenses involved recurring wrongful receipt of Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Family Separation Allowance (FSA) at three locations: Fort Bragg, Fort Campbell, and thereafter Fort Campbell/Bragg continued entitlements due to alleged marital status misrepresentations.
- The ACCA held that aggregating multiple monthly larcenies into three specifications was improper, treating each month as a separate larceny unless the government could show a single continuing scheme.
- The military judge conducted providence inquiries and a stipulation of fact, during which Hines acknowledged not being entitled to BAH but admitted to the total amounts listed in the stipulation.
- TJAG certified two questions to the Court of Appeals for the Army (CAAF): whether recurring thefts over months can be one or multiple offenses and whether the providence inquiry resolved any inconsistency between the pleas and entitlements; the CAAF answered in the affirmative for both.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recurring receipt of money over time is one crime or multiple offenses. | Hines argued multiple larcenies were involved. | United States argued recurring amounts constitute a single continuing larceny. | Recurring thefts constitute one crime under Billingslea framework. |
| Whether the providence inquiry adequately resolved any inconsistency between the pleas and entitlements. | Hines contends the inquiry did not resolve inconsistencies. | Inconsistency resolved during providence inquiry. | Providence inquiry properly resolved inconsistencies; pleas provident. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Billingslea, 603 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1979) (framework for whether recurring takings amount to one crime or multiple)
- United States v. Bolden, 28 M.J. 127 (C.M.A. 1989) (theory permitting aggregation where government proves a single plan)
- United States v. Parisien, 413 F.3d 924 (8th Cir. 2005) (early approval of Billingslea framework in aggregation)
- United States v. Smith, 373 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 2004) (aggregation framework for recurring takings)
- United States v. Papia, 910 F.2d 1357 (7th Cir. 1990) (recurring misrepresentations analyzed under continuing crime concepts)
- United States v. Lepresti, 52 M.J. 644 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1999) (Navy-Marine framing on multiple charges vs. single transaction)