United States v. Miceli, 201700062

Appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault by false pretense at a general court-martial and was sentenced to 4 years confinement, reduction to E‑1, and a dishonorable discharge.
A pretrial agreement (PTA) provided: suspension of confinement in excess of 36 months and deferral/waiver of automatic forfeitures if the appellant established a dependent allotment of $1,566.90 per month.
The military judge and counsel discussed Part II of the PTA at sentencing; all parties affirmed understanding, and the SJAR advised the CA the appellant had complied and was entitled to the agreed benefit.
The convening authority’s (CA) action waived automatic forfeitures “for the remainder of the accused’s enlistment,” though Article 58b(b), UCMJ, limits a CA’s waiver of automatic forfeitures to six months from the CA’s action.
The record shows a mutual misunderstanding: appellant believed forfeiture protection extended through his enlistment; the CA’s action mirrored that belief; but law limits the waiver to six months — a material PTA term the parties failed to recognize.
The court concluded the mutual misunderstanding rendered the guilty plea improvident and, because specific performance was not feasible and the parties could not agree on alternative relief, set aside the findings and sentence and authorized a rehearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a mutual misunderstanding of a material PTA term (duration of forfeiture waiver) rendered the guilty plea improvident	Appellant: PTA promised forfeiture protection through end of enlistment; plea was induced by that promise and thus improvident when not honored	Government: Points to pretrial advisement mentioning six‑month limit and proposed alternative remedies (6‑month waiver, corrected CA action, or rehearing)	Court: Mutual misunderstanding of a material PTA term exists; plea improvident; specific performance not possible; findings and sentence set aside and rehearing authorized

United States v. Smead, 68 M.J. 44 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (PTA interpretation is reviewed de novo)
United States v. Perron, 58 M.J. 78 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (mutual misunderstanding of material PTA term can render plea improvident; remedies include specific performance or withdrawal)
United States v. Hardcastle, 53 M.J. 299 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (principles on improvident pleas related to PTAs)
United States v. Williams, 53 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (same)
United States v. Soto, 69 M.J. 304 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (military judge must police PTA terms and ensure accused understands limitations)
United States v. Smith, 56 M.J. 271 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (military judge must confirm parties’ agreement and accused’s understanding of PTA terms)