United States v. Parenteau-Hefner
ACM 38884
| A.F.C.C.A. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Appellant, an Airman at Joint Base Elmendorf‑Richardson, ingested five tabs of LSD in his dorm, pulled a false fire alarm at ~0400, damaged an Exit sign, and assaulted another Airman during the ensuing disturbance.
- Security responded; Appellant resisted apprehension, struggled physically (kicking, biting), and was tased four times before being subdued and handcuffed.
- Appellant’s running car with keys in the ignition was found in the dorm parking lot ~30 minutes after the alarm; he later admitted he had driven and parked it the prior evening and retained the keys.
- By plea and pretrial agreement, the military judge convicted him of resisting apprehension (Art. 95), damaging property, physically controlling a vehicle while impaired by LSD (Art. 111), wrongful use of LSD, breaching the peace, and assault consummated by a battery (Art. 128); sentence: bad‑conduct discharge, 4 months confinement, reduction to E‑1, approved as adjudged.
- On appeal Appellant raised: improvident guilty pleas (resisting apprehension; controlling vehicle while impaired; assault charged as pushing “on the chest”), Eighth Amendment/Art. 55 post‑trial punishment claims, alleged SJA failure to note legal error in SJAR, and sentence severity.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Providency of plea to resisting apprehension (Art. 95) | Intoxication on LSD prevented Appellant from appreciating he was being apprehended / that the person was authorized | Voluntary intoxication is not a defense; record shows Appellant knew officer was authorized and actively resisted | Plea provident — record and admissions support elements; mistake‑of‑fact defense not shown |
| Providency of plea to assault consummated by battery (Art. 128) | Plea didn’t specifically admit pushing A1C TD “on the chest” as charged | Military judge may draw reasonable inferences; Appellant admitted pushing and facts support chest contact | Plea provident — reasonable inference and judicial admonition suffice |
| Providency of plea to physically controlling a vehicle while impaired (Art. 111) | Possibility someone else moved the car leaves insufficient factual basis | Appellant admitted he drove, parked, ingested LSD after parking, kept keys, and did not give keys to others | Plea provident — admissions and stipulation support control while impaired |
| Post‑trial cruel and unusual punishment (Art. 55 / Eighth Amendment) | Denied food during hours, inadequate bedding, loud noises, solitary, denied showers, denied medical care | Conditions were not egregious; officials followed procedures; no deliberate indifference; Appellant failed to exhaust grievance/Art. 138 remedies | No relief — conditions not severe enough; exhaustion required and not shown |
| SJA omission in SJAR regarding alleged legal error | Clemency submission should have triggered SJA note of legal error about confinement conditions | Appellant’s clemency did not clearly raise a legal claim; no plain or obvious error; convening authority considered submitted matters | No prejudicial error — waiver / no plain error shown |
| Sentence appropriateness | Sentence excessive given facts | Sentence well within limits of plea agreement and much less than maximum; offenses were serious and violent | Sentence affirmed as not inappropriately severe |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCrimmon, 60 M.J. 145 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (military judge’s duty in plea inquiry)
- United States v. Jones, 69 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (standard of review for plea acceptance)
- United States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433 (C.M.A. 1991) (substantial‑basis test to set aside guilty plea)
- United States v. Harrow, 65 M.J. 190 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (considering defense evaluation in borderline plea cases)
- United States v. Lovett, 63 M.J. 211 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (Eighth Amendment standard for post‑trial confinement claims)
- United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (waiver of SJAR errors and review standard)
- United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (timely comment on SJAR; waiver and plain‑error review)
- United States v. Penister, 25 M.J. 148 (C.M.A. 1987) (memory loss does not void guilty plea to specific intent offenses)