United States v. St. Blanc
2012 CAAF LEXIS 77
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Appellant was convicted by a general court-martial of attempting to communicate indecent language to a minor and possession of four videos and eighteen visual depictions of what appeared to be minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of Articles 80 and 134, UCMJ.
- Prior to trial, defense counsel miscalculated the potential maximum punishment by referencing CPPA provisions, predicting up to forty-nine years—notwithstanding the actual charges and applicable law.
- Appellant elected trial by military judge alone after a forum rights advisement under R.C.M. 903, with written confirmation and on-record acknowledgement of the election.
- During trial, specifications were merged and amended; findings resulted in guilty verdicts on two remaining specifications with a maximum punishment that the judge calculated using CPPA guidance.
- AFCCA affirmed, holding the sentence proper under the CPPA-based maximum, before Beaty clarified the correct maximum for possession of what appears to be child pornography.
- This Court granted review to determine whether the misadvice undermined the knowing and voluntary nature of the waiver and whether Beaty requires sentence relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did misadvice about the maximum punishment render the waiver involuntary? | St. Blanc (St. Blanc) argues miscalculated maximum undermined knowing waiver. | Appellant contends erroneous guidance by defense counsel affected forum selection understanding. | Waiver was knowing and voluntary under R.C.M. 903. |
| Was the forum selection inquiry compliant with R.C.M. 903? | No challenge to compliance with 903; issue centers on whether misadvice taints the waiver. | Beaty retroactivity may alter the sentence maximum and affect relief. | R.C.M. 903 satisfied; election valid. |
| Does Beaty retroactively apply to determine the correct maximum sentence and require relief? | Beaty controls that CPPA-based maximum cannot govern the sentence in cases like this. | Retroactive application of Beaty is limited; Griffith/retroactivity considerations are narrow. | Beaty applies; sentence must be set aside and potential rehearing ordered. |
| Should Beaty relief extend to sentencing when the maximum informed to the defense was incorrect? | Incorrect maximum misled defense and affected substantial rights. | Some miscalculations may be non-prejudicial or non-ineffective assistance concerns. | Sentence vacated; record sent for sentence rehearing consistent with Beaty. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F.2011) (set aside sentence for miscalculated maximum; requires sentence rehearing)
- United States v. Mullins, 69 M.J. 113 (C.A.A.F.2010) (applies Beaty remedy to beahvoir related to sentence)
- United States v. Harcrow, 66 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F.2008) (plain error analysis when law changes on appeal)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (retroactivity principles for fair error remedy)
- United States v. Leonard, 64 M.J. 381 (C.A.A.F.2007) (court addressed statutory maximum in child pornography context)