United States v. Pringle, ACM 39172

Background

Appellant (Air Force member) was tried at a general court-martial: pleaded guilty to two specifications of violating no-contact orders (Article 92) and was convicted by members, contrary to his pleas, of one specification charging "divers indecent acts" against his under‑16 step‑daughter (Article 134). Sentence: dishonorable discharge, 30 months confinement, forfeiture of pay, reduction to E‑1; convening authority approved.
Allegations dated 2003–2005 at Yokota AB: victim AC initially reported multiple sexual offenses (including indecent acts, rape, sodomy); many allegations rested on AC’s testimony and statements to three childhood friends.
AC initially reported the abuse in 2005, then recanted during an interview after the family moved to California; she later reasserted allegations about ten years afterward during a separate AFOSI contact. The trial record contained multiple inconsistencies in AC’s statements about dates, number of incidents, and whether she had recanted.
Military judge accepted Appellant’s guilty pleas to the no‑contact order violations after a detailed plea inquiry; Appellant admitted intent to solicit third parties to contact the protected persons.
The members convicted Appellant of only one of the indecent‑acts specifications; appellate court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency and found the evidence as to that indecent‑acts charge factually insufficient.
Result: convictions for the indecent‑acts specification and Charge III were set aside and dismissed with prejudice; convictions for the no‑contact order specifications (Charge IV) were affirmed; sentence was set aside and a rehearing on sentence was authorized.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Were pleas to no‑contact orders provident?	Plea may be defective because some described communications wouldn’t necessarily cause third‑party contact.	Plea inquiry established Appellant knowingly solicited third parties to contact protected persons and knew he violated orders.	Pleas provident; convictions for Charge IV affirmed.
Legal & factual sufficiency of conviction for "divers indecent acts" (Specification 1, Charge III)?	Evidence (primarily AC’s testimony) was unreliable and inconsistent; factual insufficiency.	Members could credit AC’s testimony and some circumstantial corroboration supported the finding.	Evidence factually insufficient; finding set aside and dismissed with prejudice.
Admission of propensity instruction under Mil. R. Evid. 413 and related evidentiary rulings?	Appellant argued abuse of discretion in giving a propensity instruction.	Government relied on trial record and judge’s discretion.	Court declined to decide after setting aside the indecent‑acts finding.
Sentence relief and post‑trial procedure (including sentencing credit and delays)?	Appellant sought sentencing credit for pretrial punishment and relief for post‑trial delay; also raised ineffective assistance and Confrontation claims.	Government opposed.	Court set aside sentence and authorized rehearing on sentence; other issues not addressed in light of reversal.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Blouin, 74 M.J. 247 (C.A.A.F.) (standard of review for acceptance of guilty pleas)
United States v. Moon, 73 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F.) (substantial basis test for pleas)
United States v. Passut, 73 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F.) (plea review principles)
United States v. Mull, 76 M.J. 741 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.) (military judge’s duty to elicit factual basis for plea)
United States v. Weeks, 71 M.J. 44 (C.A.A.F.) (abuse of discretion if judge accepts plea without adequate factual basis)
United States v. Jordan, 57 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F.) (consider entire record in plea review)
United States v. Murphy, 74 M.J. 302 (C.A.A.F.) (definition of provident plea)
United States v. Hines, 73 M.J. 119 (C.A.A.F.) (inconsistency between plea and accused’s statements)
United States v. Beatty, 64 M.J. 456 (C.A.A.F.) (legal and factual sufficiency standard)
United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A.) (legal sufficiency test)
United States v. Humpherys, 57 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F.) (legal sufficiency framing)
United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F.) (appellate factual‑sufficiency role)
United States v. Shelton, 62 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F.) (inconsistent findings do not automatically mandate reversal)
United States v. Barner, 56 M.J. 131 (C.A.A.F.) (draw inferences in favor of prosecution for legal sufficiency)
United States v. Barrow, 42 M.J. 655 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.) (inconsistent verdicts not generally grounds for relief)
United States v. Lyon, 35 C.M.R. 279 (C.M.A.) (same)