United States v. Weeks
2012 CAAF LEXIS 275
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Weeks, a senior Airman, pleaded guilty at a general court-martial to forgery among other offenses.
- He admitted generating checks to pay debts using the Barbers’ account numbers and his own name.
- The forged-checks were created electronically/telephonically but processed as tangible checks.
- The military judge instructed elements of forgery by uttering and allowed a stipulation admitting falsity.
- CCA affirmed the guilty plea on forgery, relying on the broad writing element of Article 123, UCMJ.
- The Court holds there is a substantial legal question because Weeks did not falsely make or alter a signature or writing under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weeks’s conduct satisfies Article 123 forgery by uttering | Government argued writing requirement broad; falsity shown | Weeks contends no false making; used own name | Plea improvident; writing not falsely made; charges limited |
| Whether electronic/telephonic transactions constitute writing for forgery | Government asserts writing includes electronic documents | Weeks asserts no writing under old Manual | Writing requirement clearly met; checks produced tangible writing |
| Whether a voluntary, knowing plea can stand when law is misapplied | Government relied on law to sustain plea | Plea based on erroneous legal framework | Abuse of discretion; plea to forgery set aside |
| Whether the forged-uttered element requires impersonation or false instrument | Government relies on common-law elements | No impersonation; not forged | Forgery not proved; conduct resembles larceny |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banfield, 37 M.J. 325 (CMA 1993) (whether signing own name to forged instrument satisfies forgery)
- United States v. Gosselin, 62 M.J. 349 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (plea must have adequate factual/legal basis)
- United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for guilty-plea decisions)
- United States v. Albrecht, 43 M.J. 65 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (two distinct forgery theories: making/altering and uttering)
- Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2008) (common-law falsity analysis in forgery)