United States v. Medina
2013 CAAF LEXIS 414
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Appellee Medina was convicted by general court-martial of one specification of sodomy (Art. 125, UCMJ) and one specification of assault consummated by a battery (Art. 128, UCMJ); sentence: 13 months' confinement, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge, with all but the BCD executed.
- CGCCA affirmed the findings and partially reduced the sentence to 11 months, E-2, and a bad-conduct discharge.
- This Court later vacated the CGCCA decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Hartman (Hartman).
- On remand, the CGCCA set aside the Article 125 conviction and offered the convening authority three options for disposition.
- The CGCCA noted the military judge added an element requiring the sodomy act to be prejudicial to good order and discipline, but the providence inquiry failed to explain to Medina how the additional facts placed his conduct outside Lawrence’s liberty interest.
- This Court agrees with the CGCCA that Medina’s guilty plea was improvident and affirms dismissal of the conviction under Hartman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Providence inquiry adequacy under Hartman and Care | Medina argues the inquiry failed to establish his personal understanding. | Government contends the inquiry neared Care/R.C.M. 910 standards. | Providence inquiry incomplete; plea improvident. |
| Application of Marcum factors to consensual sodomy | Medina's conduct may be constitutionally protected absent Marcum factors. | Hartman requires consideration of Marcum distinctions but not automatic criminalization. | Hartman factors control; not enough to sustain guilt. |
| Whether the conviction should be set aside or reheard | Hartman warrant set-aside and remand for proper consideration. | Remand concept permits options; no single rehearing mandated. | Conviction set aside; remand appropriate under Hartman. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. United States, 69 M.J. 467 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (provides Hartman framework distinguishing conduct subject to sanction from protected conduct)
- Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (factors distinguishing sanctionable conduct from protected liberty interest)
- Care, 40 C.M.R. 247 (1969) (provides plea inquiry requirements for guilty pleas)
- O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (quoted regarding the significance of additional facts)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (privacy/liberty interest in consensual adult sexual activity)
- Wilson v. United States, 66 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (recognizes private consensual sodomy may be non-criminal absent other factors)