United States v. Ravenscraft, 201600018

Appellant, an 18-year Navy veteran, pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to wrongfully disposing of and larceny of military property (value > $500) in violation of Articles 108 and 121, UCMJ.
Military judge sentenced appellant to 1 year confinement, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge; convening authority (CA) approved and ordered execution except for the punitive discharge.
Appellant raised multiple assignments of error on appeal, including pleas improvident (value), discovery violations, trial counsel failures to investigate impeachment of an NCIS agent, sentence severity, and ineffective assistance of counsel after trial.
The court found trial defense counsel misunderstood the law applicable to post-trial clemency (believing the CA lacked authority under amended Article 60) and therefore failed to assist the appellant in submitting clemency matters to the CA.
The court concluded this post-trial ineffective assistance produced a colorable showing of possible prejudice because the appellant’s long service and nonviolent offenses made clemency a plausible request, so the appellant was denied meaningful transmission of his clemency plea.
Remedy: the CA’s action was set aside and the record remanded for new SJA recommendation and new CA action under R.C.M. 1106/1107; appellant to receive conflict-free counsel for post-trial processing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plea improvidence: property value insufficient	Appellant: evidence insufficient to establish property value, so pleas improvident	Government: record supported value findings	Not decided as dispositive; appeal focused elsewhere (no relief granted on this ground)
Discovery suppression	Appellant: trial counsel failed to disclose favorable evidence	Government: proper disclosure or no material favorable evidence withheld	No relief; not the basis for decision
Ineffective assistance re: NCIS impeachment	Appellant: trial counsel failed to investigate impeachment evidence about NCIS agent	Government: counsel’s investigation adequate	No relief; claim not sustained here
Post-trial ineffective assistance re: clemency	Appellant: trial defense counsel failed to assist in submitting clemency and misapplied law about CA’s authority	Government/CA: relied on counsel’s view that amended Article 60 limited CA’s clemency power	Held for appellant: counsel performed below standards by misunderstanding applicable pre-amendment law and failing to transmit clemency request; colorable showing of possible prejudice; ordered new post-trial processing

United States v. Cobe, 41 M.J. 654 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1994) (counsel’s post-trial duties include assisting with clemency submissions)
United States v. Wheelus, 49 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (standard for material prejudice in post-trial ineffective assistance claims)
United States v. Craig, 28 M.J. 321 (C.M.A. 1989) (difficulty in assessing how a convening authority would exercise clemency discretion)