United States v. Private First Class JOSEPH B. CAMPBELL, ARMY 20140305

Background

PFC Joseph B. Campbell pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to conspiracy (Art. 81), larceny of military property (Art. 121), housebreaking (Art. 130), and concealing stolen property (Art. 134) for stealing batteries, tools, jumper cables, toolboxes, and an air compressor from Fort Hood motor pools and motor pool bays.
The parties entered a stipulation of fact describing three theft episodes (4, 11, and 12 October 2013) during which approximately 100 large batteries and other items were stolen and sold to scrap yards for roughly $6,000.
The military judge conducted plea providence inquiries; Campbell admitted guilt and acknowledged the items were Army property and of value over $500 during the larceny colloquy.
On initial sentence the judge adjudged a bad-conduct discharge and five months’ confinement; the convening authority approved three months’ confinement under a pretrial agreement.
Post-trial processing was unusually slow (record to this court took 390 days from sentence), with unexplained government delay; the Army CCA found the delay unreasonable and granted 30 days’ confinement credit.
The court modified the housebreaking specification to except unlawful entry into a motor pool (following CAAF precedent that a fenced motor pool is not a structure) but affirmed entry into a motor pool bay; findings otherwise were affirmed and the sentence was reduced to a bad-conduct discharge and two months’ confinement (with restoration of rights for any set-aside portion).

Issues

Issue	Campbell's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Conspiracy: whether plea was provident because conspiracy alleged an agreement to steal >$500 of military property	MJ failed to elicit that at inception the agreement included theft >$500; therefore plea may be invalid	Stipulation plus larceny providence and admissions show knowledge and agreement to steal military property in quantities valued >$500	No substantial basis to question plea; conspiracy plea provident (MJ did not abuse discretion)
Larceny: whether one specification covering multiple theft dates/items was duplicitous and made guilty plea improvident	Stipulation recited three separate larcenies but plea covered one larceny event including all items—this inconsistency undermines providence	Charging conjunctively was permissible; appellant raised no pretrial objection; stipulation and colloquy established theft of Army property >$500 across dates	No substantial basis to question plea; larceny plea provident (no prejudice from drafting)
Housebreaking: whether plea was provident given failure to state unlawful entry into a "structure"	Campbell argued he never admitted unlawful entry into a building/structure as required by Art. 130	Stipulation and inquiry showed entry into enclosed motor pool bays (locked gates cut, entry into unlocked doors to enclosed bays); motor pool bay qualifies as a structure	Court excepted language alleging entry into a "motor pool" (fenced motor pool is not a structure) but affirmed guilty plea as to motor pool bays
Post-trial delay: whether government delay warranted relief and sentence adjustment	Delay was unreasonable and prejudicial (appellant served sentence before action); relief appropriate	Government conceded delay without reasonable explanation and concurred relief warranted	Court found unexplained delay excessive and granted 30 days’ confinement credit; reassessed sentence to BCD and two months’ confinement (one judge would have affirmed as approved)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (holding standard of review for guilty plea acceptance) (explains abuse-of-discretion and de novo review of legal questions)
United States v. Gore, 60 M.J. 178 (discusses abuse-of-discretion range and setting aside pleas only for substantial basis in law or fact)
United States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433 (establishes standard for setting aside guilty pleas)
United States v. Care, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 535 (requires record to make clear factual basis for guilty plea)
United States v. Hines, 73 M.J. 119 (addressing inconsistent statements during plea and duty to resolve them)
United States v. Schell, 72 M.J. 339 (military judge must resolve or reject inconsistent pleas)
United States v. Wilson, 76 M.J. (CAAF decision clarifying that fenced motor pools are not structures but motor pool bays can be)
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (framework for determining presumptively unreasonable post-trial delay)
United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (Article 66(c) sentence-appropriateness review guidance)
United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (standards for reassessing sentence on appeal)