United States v. Pinard
201700059
| N.M.C.C.A. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to conspiracy to commit larceny and larceny; sentenced to 6 months confinement, a $4,000 fine, reduction to E‑1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence and, pursuant to a pretrial agreement (PTA), attempted to waive the adjudged fine “for the maximum allowable period of six (6) months.”
- The PTA limited approved fines to $4,000 and included provisions promising deferral and a “waiver of adjudged fines” (language the convening authority attempted to effect after approval).
- At sentencing the military judge and parties discussed deferral; all parties (trial counsel, defense, appellant) believed any unpaid portion would be deferred until the convening authority acted. They did not address the legality of a convening authority waiving a fine.
- Statutory text: Article 57(c), UCMJ, makes a fine effective when executed; Article 58b(b), UCMJ, authorizes limited waiver of forfeitures of pay and allowances but does not authorize waiver of fines. No statute permits the convening authority to waive a fine for a period of time.
- Court concluded the attempted deferral was a nullity because the fine was unexecuted until convening‑authority action; the PTA’s “waiver of adjudged fines” unlawfully delayed payment and the government lacked authority to bargain that term.
- The parties agreed on remedial action; the court affirmed findings but disapproved the adjudged $4,000 fine and affirmed the remainder of the sentence (confinement, reduction, BCD).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the convening authority (or PTA) could lawfully defer or waive an adjudged fine for a period after approval | Government/appellee: The PTA permitted deferral until convening‑authority action and any unpaid portion not cancelled by the PTA would take effect; the convening authority attempted to waive the fine per PTA | Appellant: Relied on PTA term promising waiver/deferral as a benefit of plea bargain; sought enforcement or remedy when government could not lawfully waive | Court: Statute does not authorize convening authority to waive or defer fines; the PTA term was unlawful and unenforceable, so the fine was disapproved as remedial relief |
| Whether the appellant’s guilty pleas were improvident due to a mutual misunderstanding of a material PTA term and what remedy was appropriate | Appellant: Misunderstanding of PTA term deprived him of bargain; entitled to benefit (specific performance or alternate remedy) | Government: Agreed PTA term was unenforceable and consented to disapproval of the fine as appropriate remedy | Court: Interpreting PTA is reviewed de novo; because government could not comply and parties agreed, court disapproved the fine and affirmed remaining sentence; appellant entitled to benefit of bargain and alternate remedy was accepted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smead, 68 M.J. 44 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (PTA interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Perron, 58 M.J. 78 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (alternatives to specific performance or plea withdrawal may provide the benefit of the bargain with appellant’s consent)
- United States v. Bedania, 12 M.J. 373 (C.M.A. 1982) (plea may be withdrawn when collateral consequences are major and misunderstanding results from PTA language or judicial comments)
- United States v. Smith, 56 M.J. 271 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (military judge must ascertain parties’ understanding of PTA terms during providence inquiry)
- United States v. Soto, 69 M.J. 304 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (military judge must police PTAs to ensure statutory compliance and fundamental fairness)