United States v. Holbrook ( 2008 )

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Tom K. HOLBROOK, Seaman
U.S. Coast Guard, Appellant
No. 07-0350
Crim. App. No. 1251
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued January 8, 2008
Decided February 14, 2008
RYAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which EFFRON,
C.J., and BAKER, ERDMANN, and STUCKY, JJ., joined.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Necia L. Chambliss
(argued); Lieutenant Lynn R. S. Capuano.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Commander Patrick M. Flynn (argued).
Military Judge: Steven J. Andersen
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Holbrook, No. 07-0350/CG
Judge RYAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
A special court-martial composed of a military judge sitting
alone convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of fraudulent
enlistment, making a false official statement, damage to
military property, reckless driving, use of marijuana, use,
introduction, and distribution of cocaine, leaving the scene of
an accident, and communicating a threat in violation of Articles
83, 107, 108, 111, 112a, and 134, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 883, 907, 908, 911, 912a, 934
(2000). The sentence adjudged by the court-martial included a
bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eleven months, and
reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority
approved the findings and sentence, but agreed to suspend
confinement in excess of ten months until the date of
Appellant’s release from confinement. The United States Coast
Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) set aside the findings of
guilty to the leaving the scene of an accident specification and
affirmed the remaining findings of guilty. United States v.
Holbrook, 64 M.J. 553, 558 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2007). As a
remedy for Appellant’s failure to receive speedy review of his
case, the CCA only approved a reduction in grade to E-2. Id.On Appellant’s petition, we granted review of:
WHETHER APPELLANT’S PLEA TO FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT
(CHARGE I) WAS IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE
FAILED TO ELICIT FACTS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT
2
United States v. Holbrook, No. 07-0350/CG
APPELLANT KNEW HE LIED ABOUT A MATERIAL FACT RELEVANT
TO HIS QUALIFICATIONS FOR ENLISTMENT.1
I. Facts
The specification alleged that Appellant made:
knowingly false representations that he had
experimented with marijuana, a controlled substance,
and that he did not use any other drugs, when in fact,
he used marijuana frequently, used methamphetamines 2
to 3 times a week for 2 months, and spent 2 months in
drug rehabilitation for methamphetamine addiction,
procure himself to be enlisted as a Seamen Recruit in
the Coast Guard Delayed Entry Program, and did
thereafter, receive pay and allowances under the
enlistment so procured.
Appellant stipulated to the above facts, and also that he
executed various enlistment documents, including a
questionnaire, DD Form 1966. Consistent with the charged
specification, Appellant further stipulated, inter alia, that he
knowingly misrepresented on DD Form 1966 that he had
“experimented with marijuana, but no other drugs.” In fact,
Appellant had used marijuana extensively, had been a heavy user
of methamphetamines, and had spent two months in a drug
rehabilitation facility. The providence inquiry supported each
of these facts, without contradiction.
II. Discussion
Appellant argues that his guilty plea to fraudulent
enlistment was nonetheless not provident because the military
judge failed to establish that Appellant knew that the facts he
1
65 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2007).
3
United States v. Holbrook, No. 07-0350/CG
misrepresented were “material” to his enlistment at the time he
made them. The question for us is whether that knowledge was
necessary for Appellant’s plea to have been provident in this
case. We hold that it was not.
A.
To reject a guilty plea, the trial record must show “a
‘substantial basis’ in law and fact for questioning the guilty
plea.” United States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433, 436 (C.M.A. 1991).
Review of the statutory elements required to establish an
offense is a question of law we undertake de novo. Cf. United
States v. Garcia, 44 M.J. 496, 497 (C.A.A.F. 1996). If
Appellant’s providence inquiry established the facts necessary
to support the elements of the UCMJ offense charged, the plea to
that charge is provident. United States v. Faircloth, 45 M.J.
172, 174 (C.A.A.F. 1996).
The text of Article 83, UCMJ, states, inter alia, that
“[a]ny person who . . . procures his own enlistment or
appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false
representation or deliberate concealment as to his
qualifications for that enlistment or appointment and receives
pay or allowances thereunder . . . shall be punished as a court-
martial may direct.” The elements of the offense, as listed by
the President, are:
4
United States v. Holbrook, No. 07-0350/CG
(a) That the accused was enlisted . . . in an armed
force;
(b) That the accused knowingly misrepresented or
deliberately concealed a certain material fact or
facts regarding qualifications of the accused for
enlistment . . . ;
(c) That the accused’s enlistment was obtained or
procured by that knowingly false representation or
deliberate concealment; and
(d) That under this enlistment . . . that accused
received pay or allowances or both.
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States pt. IV, para. 7.b.(1)
(2005 ed.) (MCM).
Both the statute and MCM provide that a misrepresentation
needs to be knowing, and concealment deliberate. But we see no
requirement within either the text of Article 83, UCMJ, or the
elements set forth in the MCM that the accused actually know
anything other than that his answers to questions regarding his
qualifications are untruthful by commission or omission. The
question whether a fact is “regarding qualifications” for
“enlistment,” and “material,” is analyzed from the perspective
of the service making the decision on the enlistment, not from
the perspective of the untruthful applicant.2 See, e.g., United
2
Of course, not every fact regarding a qualification for
enlistment may be material. The President’s addition of the
adjective “material” in MCM pt. IV, para. 7.b.(1) limits the
scope of actionable untruths regarding qualifications for
enlistment. In determining whether a statement is material to
qualifications for enlistment, we look at what the
misrepresentation concealed and what qualities the service
5
United States v. Holbrook, No. 07-0350/CG
States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 512 (1995) (describing
materiality under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 as requiring a finding that
the accused made a statement to a listener who was attempting to
make a decision based on that statement); cf. United States v.
Loyd, 7 C.M.R. 453, 454 (N.B.R. 1953) (holding that an Article
83, UCMJ, conviction cannot be sustained unless the government
shows that but for the fraudulent statement the accused would
not have been permitted to enlist).
No authority supports the contrary argument, which makes
criminal liability turn on whether the untruthful applicant to
the armed forces knows that the truth might preclude his
enlistment. We agree with the lower court that it would be
irrational to require that an applicant fully understand the
consequences of a truthful statement because it would mean
prospective enlistees would need to possess thorough knowledge
of the service’s enlistment standards and policies prior to
applying for and entering active duty. Holbrook, 64 M.J. at
556.
B.
It is undisputed that Appellant’s providence inquiry
established that he was enlisted in the armed forces, received
sought to assess in determining fitness for duty. Gaudin, 515
U.S. at 512. The threshold is low, as a material statement is
one that need only have a tendency to influence the decision-
making body to which it is addressed. Id. at 509.
6
United States v. Holbrook, No. 07-0350/CG
pay and allowances, knowingly misrepresented the extent of his
preservice drug use, and that such prior drug use is relevant to
qualification for enlistment in the Coast Guard -- i.e.,
material. Appellant’s providence inquiry established both every
element of an Article 83, UCMJ, offense and the facts alleged in
the specification. Any prevarication during the providence
inquiry regarding the timing of Appellant’s knowledge of the
materiality of his misrepresentations did not raise a
substantial basis in law and fact for questioning his guilty
plea to a violation of Article 83, UCMJ.
III. Decision
The decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
7