United States v. Parker
2014 WL 5510957
A.F.C.C.A.2014Background
- Parker pled guilty to rape of a child, aggravated sexual contact with a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, two indecent liberties with a child specifications, two sodomy with a child specifications, and two possession of child pornography specifications under Articles 120, 125, and 134 UCMJ.
- Judgment: dishonorable discharge, life confinement, and reduction to E-1.
- Appellate government and defense counsel submitted briefs; Parker challenges multiplicity and sentence appropriateness; court sua sponte discusses post-trial processing.
- Multiplicity issue centers on whether sodomy specifications are lesser-included offenses of indecent liberties specifications.
- The military judge accepted guilty pleas after questions on providence; defense affirmed providence for both indecent liberties specifications.
- Post-trial processing error identified: SJA omitted overseas/combat service from the service record, raising plain error potential but no prejudicial effect found in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiplicity of sodomy and indecent liberties specifications | Parker argues multiplicity; sodomy duplicative of indecent liberties | United States contends not facially duplicative; providence and waiver considerations | Not facially duplicative; no plain error; elements are distinct. |
| Sentence appropriateness of life confinement | Parker argues sentence is inappropriately severe | United States argues severity warranted by conduct | Sentence to life confinement affirmed as appropriate. |
| Post-trial processing error regarding overseas service in SJAR | Parker argues plain error affected clemency process | United States argues no prejudice from omission given record | Plain error found but no material prejudice; admonition to SJAs issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. United States, 68 M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (multiplicity waiver/forfeiture distinctions; facial duplicativeness)
- Gladue v. United States, 67 M.J. 311 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (distinguish forfeiture vs waiver of multiplicity)
- Pauling v. United States, 60 M.J. 91 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (facial duplicativeness; elements must be distinct)
- Caulfield v. United States, 72 M.J. 690 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2011) (waiver/forfeiture of multiplicity when defense requests relief)
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989) ( Lesser included offenses and proof of elements)
- Bell v. United States, 38 M.J. 523 (A.C.M.R. 1993) (age elements distinction in multiplicity)
- St. John v. United States, 72 M.J. 685 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2013) (waiver/forfeiture considerations in multiplicity)