United States v. Lafontaine, ACM 39004

Appellant (Air Force) pled guilty at a general court-martial to multiple offenses including conspiracy, false official statement, drug use/distribution, child endangerment (two specifications), communicating a threat, obstruction, destruction of evidence, and bank fraud; sentence approved after pretrial agreement dismissals.
Relevant facts: Appellant used and distributed controlled substances, participated in depositing bad checks, attempted to destroy electronic evidence by factory-resetting phones, and threatened a fellow airman she believed cooperated with investigators.
Child endangerment facts: (1) infant MH exposed at home to unsanitary conditions (animal feces, soiled diapers, ripped trash, spoiled food) and left in soiled diapers for hours; (2) at six weeks old MH left strapped in an infant seat outside for ~7 hours in ~50°F with periodic rain.
Threat fact: Appellant told a third party she would "call [her] friends to come teach [NG] a lesson," and admitted intending to put NG in fear and not joking when she said it.
Procedural/post-trial issue: Convening authority took action 132 days after trial (12 days beyond the 120-day Moreno standard); appellant claimed prejudice and sought modest sentence relief under Tardif.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Providency of guilty pleas to two child-endangerment specs	Pleas were improvident because the inquiry did not establish "reasonable probability of harm" or culpable negligence	Military judge’s Care inquiry plus stipulation provided sufficient factual basis showing culpable negligence and reasonable probability of harm	No abuse of discretion; pleas provident — factual admissions and stipulation support convictions
Providency of guilty plea to communicating a threat	Plea was improvident because admissions did not show subjective intent to threaten (only venting)	Record shows objective threat (reasonable person) and repeated admissions of intent to scare/harm NG (subjective intent)	No abuse of discretion; plea provident — both objective and subjective elements satisfied
Post-trial delay beyond 120-day standard (Moreno)	12-day delay caused severe anxiety, depression, weight gain; seeks sentence relief under Tardif	Delay explained by court reporter workload, record complexity, victim letter issues, and extension for clemency submission; not deliberate or grossly indifferent	Delay was facially unreasonable but not a due-process violation; Tardif relief denied — no significant prejudice or institutional harm shown

United States v. Blouin, 74 M.J. 247 (C.A.A.F.) (standard of review for accepting guilty pleas)
United States v. Moon, 73 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F.) (substantial basis test for guilty pleas)
United States v. Passut, 73 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F.) (guilty plea review principles)
United States v. Weeks, 71 M.J. 44 (C.A.A.F.) (military judge must have adequate factual basis)
United States v. Jordan, 57 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F.) (look to entire record for providency)
United States v. Murphy, 74 M.J. 302 (C.A.A.F.) (accused must be convinced of and able to describe facts to establish guilt)
United States v. Plant, 74 M.J. 297 (C.A.A.F.) (child endangerment requires reasonable probability of harm)
United States v. Rapert, 75 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F.) (objective and subjective elements for communicating a threat)
United States v. Brown, 65 M.J. 227 (C.A.A.F.) (threat analysis must include words and surrounding circumstances)
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.) (120-day presumption for convening authority action)
United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.) (post-trial delay relief framework)