United States v. Specialist JACOB A. DICKERSON
20220118
A.C.C.A.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Specialist Jacob A. Dickerson, a military police officer on duty at Fort Bragg, was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of wrongful use of oxycodone and dereliction of duty under Articles 112a and 92, UCMJ.
- Dickerson’s dereliction charge arose from his use of a brief period during his MP shift to coordinate a drug purchase via phone, and not reporting this conduct while supervising a base gate.
- The preliminary hearing officer advised dismissing the dereliction charge due to failure to specify the duty allegedly neglected, but charges proceeded to general court-martial.
- Dickerson entered a plea deal: the distribution charge was dismissed, and the maximum confinement reduced, but he pled guilty to wrongful use and dereliction.
- The court noted extensive, unexplained post-trial delay: over 500 days elapsed before the record was sent to appellate court, with additional failure to timely provide defense counsel with the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of dereliction of duty charge | Factual and legal basis lacking; required self-incrimination | Sufficient basis from duties & established facts | Plea to dereliction charge was not factually or legally sufficient; conviction set aside |
| Post-trial processing delay | Delay was excessive and unconstitutional | Delays were justified by operational factors | Delay was excessive, unjustified, and violated due process; relief granted |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed client's best interests by urging plea to flawed charge | Counsel's actions were within reasonable bounds | Counsel was not ineffective; no relief warranted |
| Validity of plea agreement's record-of-trial term | Term improperly waived individual record receipt | Government provided record to counsel as required | Government failed to timely provide record, but no specific separate relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kim, 83 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2023) (abuse of discretion standard in accepting guilty pleas; requirement for adequate factual basis)
- United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (guilty plea will stand unless substantial basis for questioning exists)
- United States v. Garcia, 44 M.J. 496 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (providence inquiry into guilty pleas must objectively support the plea)
- United States v. Winfield, 83 M.J. 662 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2023) (meaningless appeals may violate rights; remedies for excessive appellate delay)
- United States v. Barker, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (factors for constitutional analysis of post-trial delay)