United States v. Sergeant First Class ANSEL R. MANNING ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    Before
    TOZZI, LIND, and CELTNIEKS
    Appellate Military Judges
    UNITED STATES, Appellee
    v.
    Sergeant First Class ANSEL R. MANNING
    United States Army, Appellant
    ARMY 20130142
    Headquarters, 82d Airborne Division
    Kirsten V.C. Brunson, Military Judge
    Lieutenant Colonel John N. Ohlweiler, Staff Judge Advocate
    For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Robert N. Michaels, JA; Captain
    Patrick J. Scudieri, JA (on brief).
    For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Captain
    Janae M. Lepir, JA; Captain Carrie L. Ward, JA (on brief).
    6 January 2015
    ---------------------------------
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION
    ---------------------------------
    Per Curiam:
    A military judge sitting as a general court -martial convicted appellant,
    pursuant to his pleas, of two specifications of attempted sale of military property
    without proper authority, one specification of false official statement, eight
    specifications of selling military property without proper authority, three
    specifications of stealing military property, and one specification of knowingly
    receiving stolen property, in violation of Articles 80, 107, 108, 1 21, and 134,
    Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 907, 908, 921, 934 (2006)
    [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad -conduct
    discharge, confinement for fifteen months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
    reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved thirteen months
    confinement and the remainder of the sentence. 1
    1
    The convening authority deferred automatic and adjudged forfeitures until action.
    MANNING—ARMY 20130142
    This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant’s
    sole assignment of error warrants brief dis cussion and relief. Appellant’s personal
    submissions made pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 
    12 M.J. 431
    (C.M.A.
    1982) do not warrant relief. 2
    Among many other offenses, appellant pleaded guilty to stealing “greater than
    10” rail adapter systems designed for M4 carbines. The stipulation of fact in this
    case states appellant wrongfully took more than ten rail adaptor systems by placing
    them in his personal items. However, during the providence inquiry, appellant
    stated that he only took ten rail adaptor systems.
    A guilty plea is not provident if there is “a substantial conflict between the
    plea and the accused’s statements or other evidence.” United States v. Garcia, 
    44 M.J. 496
    , 498 (C.A.A.F. 1996). In such a case, a military judge abuses his or her
    discretion by accepting the guilty plea without making further inquiries regarding
    the conflict. See United States v. Watson, 
    71 M.J. 54
    , 58 (C.A.A.F. 2012). Here, the
    military judge did not resolve the inconsistency as to how many rail adapter systems
    appellant stole. The government concedes that appellant providently pleaded guilty
    to stealing ten rail adapter systems. Upon review of the providence inquiry, we
    accept the concession.
    CONCLUSION
    Upon consideration of the entire record, this cou rt affirms only so much of
    Specification 4 of Charge IV as follows:
    In that [appellant] U.S. Army, did, at or near FOB Sykes,
    Iraq, on or about 15 February 2010, steal 10 Knights
    Armament M4 Rail Adapter Systems, military property, of
    a value greater than $500, property of the United States.
    The remaining findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. The principles announced in
    United States v. Winckelmann, 
    73 M.J. 11
    , 15-16 (C.A.A.F. 2013), weigh in favor of
    reassessing and affirming the sentence. In particular, the gravamen of appellant’s
    criminal conduct is unchanged and appellant was sentenced by a military judge
    alone. The sentence is AFFIRMED.
    2
    Appellant’s personal submissions note an error in the promulgatin g order, which
    we will correct.
    2
    MANNING—ARMY 20130142
    FOR
    FOR THE
    THE COURT:
    COURT:
    MALCOLM H.
    MALCOLM      H. SQUIRES,
    SQUIRES, JR.
    JR.
    Clerk  of Court
    Clerk of Court
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ARMY 20130142

Filed Date: 1/6/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021