United States v. King, 201600174

Appellant (Corporal King) pleaded guilty, pursuant to a pretrial agreement (PTA), to aggravated assault (lesser included of maiming) arising from a single altercation in Okinawa where he struck Cpl M.D.G. with a glass, causing serious facial injuries requiring surgery.
Originally charged at general court-martial with maiming (Article 124) and aggravated assault (Article 128); the judge had allowed both on the sheet for contingencies of proof but later consolidated and treated them as a single offense.
At the providence inquiry the judge relied on a stipulation of fact addressing Charge I (the lesser-included aggravated assault); the stipulation did not mention Charge II and the judge did not question the accused about Charge II.
The military judge announced a guilty finding referencing the "charge now pending," and later stated the finding was for a violation of Article 128 and its single specification; the convening authority approved the sentence but the promulgating order listed two assault convictions.
Appellant raised two assignments of error: (1) exclusion of certain presentencing evidence (demeanor/contrition and victim intoxication) and (2) the promulgating order erroneously reflecting conviction of two specifications.
The court found the promulgating order reflected a scrivener/multiplicity problem and dismissed Charge II and its specification; it affirmed the remaining finding and the sentence as approved by the convening authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of presentencing evidence (demeanor/contrition and victim intoxication)	King argued the military judge abused discretion by excluding evidence explaining his state of mind and victim intoxication as extenuation/mitigation.	Government defended the judge’s evidentiary rulings and argued excluded material was cumulative/immaterial.	Even assuming error, exclusion did not substantially influence sentence; no material prejudice.
Multiplicity / Promulgating order listing two convictions	King argued the promulgating order incorrectly showed conviction of two specifications for the same assault.	Government conceded a scrivener’s error but did not fully accept responsibility for charging/multiplicity procedures.	Court concluded Charge II was multiplicious and not properly dismissed; it dismissed Charge II/specification and affirmed the single aggravated-assault conviction and sentence.

United States v. Carter, 74 M.J. 204 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (standards for admissibility of sentencing evidence)
United States v. Hudson, 59 M.J. 357 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (charging both an offense and its lesser-included offense is impermissibly multiplicious)
United States v. Care, 40 C.M.R. 247 (C.M.A. 1969) (military judge’s duty to establish factual basis for guilty plea)
United States v. Aleman, 62 M.J. 281 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (accused must admit every element of offense to sustain guilty plea)
United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (improvident plea if judge fails to establish adequate basis in law or fact)
United States v. Edwards, 65 M.J. 622 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (factors to assess whether excluded evidence substantially influenced sentence)