United States v. Soto
2011 CAAF LEXIS 77
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Soto pleaded guilty by military judge under a pretrial agreement containing a quantum portion.
- Quantum portion required Soto to request a bad-conduct discharge during sentencing and post-trial Chapter 10 if discharge not adjudged.
- The quantum provision was not disclosed to the military judge or discussed with Soto during the plea inquiry.
- During sentencing, defense requested a bad-conduct discharge; judge sentenced Soto and later discussed only other PTA terms, not the BCD request provision.
- ACCA summarily affirmed; Soto sought Supreme Court review on whether the PTA provision violating Rule for Courts-Martial 705(c)(1)(B) and public policy invalidated providence of the plea.
- Court held the plea providence was improvident due to undisclosed quantum-term directing a sentence-related action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PTA provision directing a request for bad-conduct discharge invalidates providence of the guilty plea. | Soto | Soto | Improvident plea; provision undermines providence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perron, 58 M.J. 78 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (stricter plea standards for military judges)
- United States v. Partin, 7 M.J. 409 (C.M.A. 1979) (judge must police pretrial agreements for fairness)
- United States v. King, 3 M.J. 458 (C.M.A. 1977) (plea inquiry ensures defendant understands agreement)
- United States v. Felder, 59 M.J. 444 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (inadequate inquiry can render plea improvident)
- United States v. Davis, 50 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (pretrial agreement cannot transform trial into empty ritual)
- United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (need for basis in law and fact to support plea)