United States v. Specialist JOSHUA D. CHANDLER
2015 CCA LEXIS 138
| A.C.C.A. | 2015Background
- Specialist Joshua D. Chandler, an armorer at JBLM, conspired with fellow soldiers to steal and sell military property (including optics and accessories) valued in the hundreds of thousands; he aided recovery efforts after his involvement was discovered.
- Chandler consulted military defense counsel, waived Article 31 rights, and agreed to cooperate with CID without any immunity being granted (counsel had attempted but the government declined).
- At trial an officer panel convicted Chandler of multiple offenses including conspiracy, larceny, sale and wrongful disposition of military property, housebreaking, threats, and obstruction; sentence approved: dishonorable discharge, ~9 years, forfeitures, reduction.
- Post-trial, the military judge discovered he had given an incorrect mistake-of-fact instruction (used an honest-and-reasonable standard rather than the Binegar honest-only standard) and, without convening authority direction, ordered a post-trial proceeding in revision to reinstruct the same members and have them re-deliberate.
- Defense objected that the proceeding in revision was improper; the military judge nonetheless reconvened the same panel, re-instructed, and the panel largely reaffirmed guilt. On appeal the Army Court reviewed multiple claims including ineffective assistance/conflict, legality of the post-trial session, instruction error, consolidation of conspiracy specs, and post-trial delay.
Issues
| Issue | Chandler's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance / conflict of interest | Counsel was ineffective and conflicted by advising cooperation without securing immunity, which tainted later representation | Counsel thoroughly advised, attempted to obtain immunity, and cooperation was a reasonable strategic choice; no conflict | Defense counsel's performance was not deficient; no conflict existed |
| Legality of post-trial proceeding (proceeding in revision/rehearing) | Military judge had no authority to recall the same members to cure substantive instructional error; proceeding was effectively an improper rehearing | Military judge acted to correct his instructional error and believed R.C.M. 1102 allowed revision | Proceeding in revision to cure a substantive instructional error before the same panel was void ab initio; judge erred in directing it |
| Mistake-of-fact instruction error | Incorrect instruction (honest-and-reasonable) deprived appellant of correct affirmative-defense instruction (honest-only per Binegar) | Error requires Chapman harmlessness analysis; government argued findings remain reliable | Instructional error was constitutional but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; original July 2012 findings of guilt stand |
| Post-trial delay / speedy post-trial review | Delay of 420 days between trial and action violated due process; requested relief (credit) | Delay partly attributable to defense record review and extensions; remaining delay inadequately explained but not egregious | No due-process violation under Barker/Toohey; no additional relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for constitutional error)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four-factor speedy trial/post-trial delay test)
- United States v. Binegar, 55 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (mistake-of-fact for specific intent offenses requires honest belief only)
- United States v. Gleason, 43 M.J. 69 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (limits on post-trial rehearings/proceedings in revision to correct substantive errors)
- United States v. Roman, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 78 (distinguishing proper uses of proceedings in revision vs. rehearings)
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (speedy post-trial review analysis)