United States v. Wright , 2007 CAAF LEXIS 1653 ( 2007 )

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Kerry T. WRIGHT II, Sergeant
U.S. Army, Appellant
No. 07-0412
Crim. App. No. 20051233
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued November 27, 2007
Decided December 10, 2007
PER CURIAM
Counsel
For Appellant: Major Leonard W. Jones (argued); Colonel
Christopher J. O’Brien; Lieutenant Colonel Steven C. Henricks,
Major Fansu Ku, and Captain Seth A. Director (on brief); Captain
Nathan J. Bankson.
For Appellee: Major Dana E. Leavitt (argued); Colonel John W.
Miller II, Major Elizabeth G. Marotta, and Captain W. Todd
Kuchenthal (on brief); Captain Michael Friess.
Military Judge: R. Peter Masterton
This opinion is subject to revision before final publication.
United States v. Wright, No. 07-0412/AR
PER CURIAM:
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial
convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of making a false
official statement and larceny of military property in violation
of Articles 107 and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 907, 921 (2000). The adjudged sentence
included confinement for twelve months, reduction to pay grade
E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct
discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as
adjudged, and the court below affirmed. United States v.
Wright, No. ARMY 20051233 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 28, 2007).
On Appellant’s petition, we granted review of the following
issue:
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN
FINDING APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE
SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE I AND TO CHARGE I, FALSE
OFFICIAL STATEMENT, PROVIDENT WHEN THE STATEMENT IN
QUESTION WAS NOT, IN FACT, FALSE.
BACKGROUND
Appellant pleaded guilty to making the following false
official written statement to an officer investigating the theft
of computers: “While loading up the connex’s, I noticed that
the four computers weren’t on top of the box anymore.” During
the course of the providence inquiry, Appellant admitted that
while he was loading military property into vans prior to his
unit’s redeployment, he and another soldier stole four
2
United States v. Wright, No. 07-0412/AR
government laptop computers from off the top of a box, rather
than loading them into a van. Appellant explained that the
charged statement he made to the investigating officer was false
because it meant that he had “no knowledge of where the
computers went,” when “in all actuality, [he] knew why they were
missing and where they went.” The following colloquy occurred
between the military judge and Appellant:
MJ: And are you sure that statement was totally
false? In other words, are you sure that that
statement was totally false?1
ACC: Sir, they were no longer on top of the box,
that’s true, but the false part is I knew where they
went, sir.
MJ: So essentially, by making that statement, that
statement was completely misleading or false?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: You admit that?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Do you admit that you knew it was false at the
time you made it?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: And do you admit that the false statement was
made with the intent to deceive?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: How was it made with the intent to deceive?
1
We note that the element in question requires that the
statement be “false in certain particulars” as opposed to
“totally false.” Manual for Courts-Martial, United States pt.
IV, para. 31.b.(2) (2005 ed.).
3
United States v. Wright, No. 07-0412/AR
ACC: By telling him that I noticed they weren’t on
the box anymore, that’d tell him that I had no
knowledge of the computers being moved, sir.
Furthermore, Appellant reiterated that his statement “basically
told [the investigating officer] that [he] didn’t know anything
about the computers coming up missing . . . to prove to him that
[he] had nothing to do with the computers being missing, or
[that he] didn’t know about the computers being missing.”
On appeal, Appellant argues that the military judge erred
in accepting his guilty pleas to making a false official
statement because the statement, although misleading, was true.
DISCUSSION
Within the context of the circumstances of this case as set
forth in the providence inquiry, Appellant’s statement was
false. United States v. Arondel de Hayes, 22 M.J. 54, 56
(C.M.A. 1986) (“[W]ords, clear on their face, are to be
understood in their common sense and usage.”). Appellant lied
when he asserted that “[w]hile loading up the connex’s,” he
noticed the computers were missing. “Having said that, he said
more than simply that they were absent: He said that he had no
explanation for their absence. Of course, this was not
literally true.” Id. Appellant’s statement also falsely
suggested that the computers went missing at a particular time,
that is, while he was loading up the connex boxes. Accordingly,
no substantial basis in law and fact exists for questioning the
4
United States v. Wright, No. 07-0412/AR
guilty plea. United States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433, 436 (C.M.A.
1991).
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the United States Army Court of
Criminal Appeals.
5