UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Jason R. JORDAN, Private
U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant
No. 01-0483
Crim. App. No. 99-1778
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued February 27, 2002
Decided August 30, 2002
BAKER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which GIERKE and EFFRON, JJ., joined. CRAWFORD, C.J., and
SULLIVAN, S.J., each filed a dissenting opinion.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Glenn Gerding, JAGC, USNR
(argued and on brief).
For Appellee: Lieutenant Ross W. Weiland, JAGC, USNR
(argued); Colonel Rose M. Favors, USMC, Commander Peter A.
Dutton, JAGC, USN, and Major William J. Collins, Jr., USMC
(on brief); Colonel Marc W. Fisher, USMC.
Military Judge: David S. Durbin
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
Judge BAKER delivered the opinion of the Court.
On July 30, 1999, at Bremerton, Washington, appellant
was tried by a special court-martial composed of a military
judge alone. Consistent with his pleas, appellant was
convicted of two specifications of willful disobedience of
a superior commissioned officer, failure to obey a lawful
order by wrongfully having an unregistered guest in the
barracks, four specifications of breaking restriction, and
unlawful entry, in violation of Articles 90, 92, and 134,
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 890, 892, and
934, respectively. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct
discharge, confinement for 45 days, and forfeiture of
$600.00 pay per month for one month. On December 1, 1999,
in accordance with a pretrial agreement, the convening
authority approved the sentence but suspended all
confinement in excess of 24 days for a period of 6 months
from the date of trial. On February 27, 2001, the Navy-
Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the
findings of guilty and the sentence in an unpublished
opinion. United States v. Jordan, No. 99-1778 (N.M. Ct.
Crim. App. 2001).
This Court granted review of the following issues:1
1
We heard oral argument in this case at Mahan Hall, United States Naval
Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, as part of the Court’s “Project
Outreach.” See United States v. Allen, 34 MJ 228, 229 n.1 (1992).
2
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT A SAILBOAT AMOUNTS TO A
“STRUCTURE USUALLY USED FOR HABITATION OR
STORAGE” FOR PURPOSES OF CONVICTING APPELLANT OF
THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
II. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT
LEANING ON A SAILBOAT’S RAILING CONSTITUTES AN
“ENTRY” FOR PURPOSES OF CONVICTING APPELLANT OF
THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
We reverse, holding that appellant’s guilty plea to
unlawful entry was improvident. Appellant’s providence
inquiry does not establish a basis for concluding that
appellant’s conduct was prejudicial to good order and
discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces.
Background
The granted issues relate to appellant’s unlawful
entry conviction under Specification 5 of Charge III.2
The elements of this offense are:
(1) That the accused entered the real property of
another or certain personal property of another
which amounts to a structure usually used for
habitation or storage;
(2) That such entry was unlawful; and
2
This specification (violation of Article 134) reads:
In that Private Jason R. Jordan . . . did, at or near the
Port of Silverdale, located at Silverdale, Washington, on
or about 27 June 1999, unlawfully board the private boat of
George and Toni Rowe, civilians.
3
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the
accused was to the prejudice of good order and
discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature
to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Para. 111b, Part IV, Manual for Courts-Martial, United
States (2000 ed).3
The military judge accepted appellant’s guilty plea to
this offense based on the providence inquiry set forth in
the appendix to this opinion. There was no stipulation of
fact associated with appellant’s pretrial agreement or the
plea inquiry.
Based on this providence inquiry, the Court of
Criminal Appeals concluded that appellant agreed the boat
could be used as a place of habitation. Unpub. op. at 2-3.
It also concluded that as a matter of law, the sailboat was
a structure used for habitation and storage within the
meaning of the Manual for Courts-Martial. Id. at 3.
Further, the court stated:
Insofar as the “entry” element is concerned,
the appellant admitted that he leaned his body on
the railing of the sailboat so that his upper
body extended forward past the gunwale and that
his feet ended up in the air. By doing so, he
was effectively on the sailboat and had
accomplished a trespass without the permission of
the occupant. The occupant subsequently told
Lance Corporal Bain, the roving sentry at the
3
All Manual provisions cited are identical to the ones in effect at the
time of appellant’s court-martial.
4
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
scene, that the appellant was leaning on her boat
and expressed a desire that he be removed.
Id. (footnote omitted).
Finally, with respect to the third element of the
offense, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded “[t]he
appellant admitted that such conduct would tend to ‘harm
the reputation of the service or lower it in public
esteem.’ Accordingly, [it found] the appellant’s guilty
plea to be provident.” Id.
Before this Court, appellant claims that a sailboat
cannot be the object of an unlawful entry because it is
more like a car or plane than a “structure usually used for
habitation or storage” under Article 134. He further
argues that leaning on the rail of the gunwale is not an
“entry” and, even if it is, it is not a sufficient enough
entry on which to base the Charge. These arguments
necessarily focus on elements (1) and (2) of the offense,
as do the granted issues. However, they also relate to
appellant’s more general claim that the military judge
erred in accepting the plea to unlawful entry because the
plea was unsupported by the facts.
The Government first argues that the military judge
established the factual predicate for appellant’s unlawful
entry during the providence inquiry. Second, it claims
5
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
appellant has not met his burden of establishing a
substantial basis in law and fact to question the plea, and
his own words objectively support his plea. Further, the
Government contends, an inhabited boat is a “structure”
under Article 134, since a “houseboat” is listed as an
example of a “structure” under Article 130 (Housebreaking),
UCMJ, 10 USC § 930. See para. 56c(4), Part IV, Manual,
supra. Appellant physically entered the structure when his
upper body crossed over the gunwales of the craft.
Finally, the Government asserts, appellant admitted that
his conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline.
Discussion
Under Article 45, UCMJ, 10 USC § 845, if an accused
makes an irregular pleading, sets up matter inconsistent
with a guilty plea, or appears to enter a plea
improvidently or through lack of understanding of its
meaning or effect, the plea shall not be accepted by the
court. Rejection of a guilty plea on appellate review
requires that the record of trial show a substantial basis
in law and fact for questioning the guilty plea. United
States v. Prater, 32 MJ 433, 436 (CMA 1991).
To guard against improvident pleas under Article 45,
RCM 910(e), Manual, supra, provides: “The military judge
shall not accept a plea of guilty without making such
6
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
inquiry of the accused as shall satisfy the military judge
that there is a factual basis for the plea.” In order to
establish an adequate factual predicate for a guilty plea,
the military judge must elicit “factual circumstances as
revealed by the accused himself [that] objectively support
that plea[.]” United States v. Davenport, 9 MJ 364, 367
(CMA 1980). It is not enough to elicit legal conclusions.
The military judge must elicit facts to support the plea of
guilty. United State v. Outhier, 45 MJ 326, 331 (1996).
The record of trial must reflect not only that the elements
of each offense charged have been explained to the accused,
but also “make clear the basis for a determination by the
military trial judge. . . whether the acts or the omissions
of the accused constitute the offense or offenses to which
he is pleading guilty.” United States v. Care, 18 USCMA
535, 541, 40 CMR 247, 253 (1969).
At the same time, this Court and the Courts of
Criminal Appeals are cognizant that Prater provides for a
substantial basis test for appellate review of the
providence of guilty pleas. By its nature, a guilty plea
case is less likely to have developed facts, particularly
where there is no accompanying stipulation of fact. Those
facts that are part of the military judge’s providence
inquiry are not subject to the test of adversarial process.
7
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
We are similarly mindful that a decision to plead guilty
may include a conscious choice by an accused to limit the
nature of the information that would otherwise be disclosed
in an adversarial contest. Thus, this Court has declined
to adopt too literal an application of Article 45 and RCM
910(e). When this Court has addressed a bare bones
providence inquiry, we have not ended our analysis at the
edge of the providence inquiry but, rather, looked to the
entire record to determine whether the dictates of Article
45, RCM 910, and Care and its progeny have been met.
In United States v. Sweet, 42 MJ 183 (1995), the
providence inquiry included little more than a recitation
by the military judge of the elements of indecent acts and
the Manual’s explanation as to the meaning of “indecent,”
followed by the accused’s “Yes, sir” admission of guilt.
However, during the providence inquiry in Sweet, the
military judge cross-referenced a stipulation of fact
offered by the accused.4 On review, this Court acknowledged
“that a more detailed inquiry in many instances may be
advisable or even necessary in order to resolve questions
surrounding the providence of pleas.” Id. at 185. We
nonetheless took into consideration related factors,
4
The military judge stated: “Ensign Sweet, Specification 1 and 2 allege
that you committed certain acts. The Stipulation details those acts.”
42 MJ at 184.
8
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
including the existence of and reference to the
stipulation, and the accused’s status as a commissioned
officer, in concluding that his “yes” and “no” answers to
the military judge’s inquiry responded to questions of fact
and not just conclusions of law. Id.
To affirm appellant’s guilty plea in this case would
require us to go further than Sweet and conclude that a
providence inquiry that includes conclusions of law alone
satisfies the requirements of Article 45 and RCM 910(e).
It does not.
Regarding the third element of unlawful entry, the
colloquy between appellant and the military judge set forth
in the appendix of this opinion reveals that appellant
simply responded “Yes, sir” to the several questions put to
him as to whether his conduct was prejudicial to good order
and discipline or service discrediting. These questions
were legal conclusions with which appellant was asked to
agree without any admissions from him to support them.5 As
such, they were “[m]ere conclusions of law recited by an
accused [that] are insufficient to provide a factual basis
for a guilty plea.” Outhier, 45 MJ at 331. Indeed, on the
question of service discrediting conduct, appellant’s
statements that the owner appeared neither upset nor
9
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
agitated and that she declined to press charges when
invited to do so suggest that the service’s reputation may
not have been impugned at all.6
As a matter of law, we have no doubt that in a given
factual scenario, boarding a sailboat without the
permission of the owner could constitute the offense of
unlawful entry under Article 134. However, based on the
totality of the circumstances here, as revealed by
appellant, we are at a loss to find the basis for the
military judge’s conclusion that appellant’s conduct was
prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed
forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
forces. Appellant stated he was curious about the vessel
because it looked like his grandmother’s boat. This caused
him to lean on the boat to get a better view. His body
weight shifted from the dock to the rail of the boat. See
pages 1, 3, 4, and 8 of the appendix to this opinion.
Furthermore, this is not a case where considerations
beyond the record of trial such as those found in Sweet are
applicable. Appellant was not an officer; he was a Private
(E-1) with twelve months of service. He was not even sure
5
See page 6 of the appendix to this opinion.
6
To the extent there is any indication of the trial judge’s logic, it
may be found in his statement: “It [appellant’s actions] certainly
didn’t do anything for this civilian lady out there on that boat[.]” See
page 7 of the appendix.
10
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
what part of the vessel the military judge meant when he
referred to the stern. Nor is there a stipulation of fact
cross-referenced in the military judge’s inquiry which
could provide a factual basis for concluding that
appellant’s conduct was service discrediting.
The plea inquiry must establish the factual predicate for
the plea. This inquiry does not.7 The factual
circumstances as revealed by appellant do not objectively
support the third element of unlawful entry. United States
v. Faircloth, 45 MJ 172, 174 (1996). Therefore, a
substantial basis in law and fact exists in the record to
question his guilty plea to this offense. Prater, 32 MJ at
436.
Decision
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to Specification 5
of Charge III and the sentence. The finding of guilty to
Specification 5 of Charge III and the sentence are set
aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of
Criminal Appeals, which may order a rehearing or dismiss
7
In light of this conclusion, we need not and do not reach a conclusion
regarding the specific granted issues.
11
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
the affected specification and reassess the sentence based
on the remaining findings of guilty.
12
APPENDIX
MJ: Okay, Specification 5 is along the following
lines:
One, that on or about 27 June, 1999, you entered the
private boat of another, to wit: George and Toni Rowe;
Two, that such entry was unlawful;
Third, that under the circumstances your conduct was
to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the
armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit
upon the armed forces. Now, I want you to tell me
what you did on the 27th of June related to this
Specification that makes you think you are guilty of
this.
ACC: Down by the Port, we were walking, and I saw a
boat that looked exactly like my grandmother’s back home,
and I walked over to look at it and I leaned onto the boat,
when [sic] my feet off the ground leaning into the boat
looking, and that’s basically what happened, sir. I didn’t
board the boat. [Defense counsel conferred with the
accused.]
MJ: Private Jordan, I think you were talking with your
counsel, you might have something else to tell me?
ACC: Just that my entire body weight was on the boat,
sir.
MJ: Your entire body weight was on the boat?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: What kind of a boat was it?
ACC: It’s a sailboat, sir.
MJ: Sailboat. Are you familiar with sailboats?
ACC: Not really, sir.
MJ: What size was it?
ACC: Probably like 25 feet, sir.
MJ: 25 footer?
ACC: Something like that, I think so.
MJ: Was it the size that a person could live on?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Was there any evidence that, not immediately while
you were there, but was there any evidence that people were
using it as a place [of] habitation, a place to live,
intermittently or at all?
ACC: Um, not--[defense counsel conferred with the
accused] Yes sir, when I leaned onto the boat I noticed
there was somebody in the cabin area, sir.
MJ: Oh, so there was someone in the boat at the time?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: How many people?
ACC: Just one that I saw, sir.
MJ: Now, was this boat tied to some sort of a pier?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: And, when you said you were leaning in, I mean, my
vision of this is that there was probably an open area near
the stern. Is that correct?
ACC: I’m not sure what a stern is.
MJ: The back end, the butt end.
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: And there was some sort of a cabin over the
forward end?
ACC: It was kind of in the middle, sir.
MJ: Okay, that was the built up area?
ACC: Yes, sir.
2
MJ: And that’s where you saw this person?
ACC: There was a window that I saw her in.
MJ: I’m sorry, her?
ACC: It was a lady, sir. Yes, sir.
MJ: Now, as you were standing on the pier, tell me
what you did when you were “looking into this boat”?
ACC: I leaned on it and I was just looking all around
it.
MJ: Where were your feet?
ACC: My feet were in the air.
MJ: Your feet were in the air?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Maybe we should start at the beginning, I mean, as
you are approaching this boat, you are walking along the
pier, is that correct?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Wooden planks?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Feet are clop, clop, clopping along on the wood?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: How did it come to pass that you ended up with
your feet in the air? I’m having trouble picturing this.
ACC: When I leaned on to the boat, I was leaning
on----
MJ: Are you hanging on to some of the rigging?
ACC: No, I leaned onto the boat, sir, and my feet
came up while I was leaning on it.
3
MJ: Oh, okay. So you were, pardon my naval ways, you
were leaning over the gunnel? The side of the ship--the
side of the boat?
ACC: Yes, sir. Over the railing, sir.
MJ: The railing, okay. So you were sort of teeter
tottering, if you will, on the edge of this craft. Was it
your waist that was physically in touch with the railing?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Did this person on the boat see you, if you know?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: If you know, how did you come to be discovered in
this particular operation?
ACC: When the female saw me, I guess.
MJ: And what happened then?
ACC: She--actually right as she had seen me, the other
lance corporal had came [sic] by and said that I was----
MJ: Is this Ragan Louis?
ACC: No, that--this is Lance Corporal Bain.
MJ: Oh, he’s the roving patrol?
ACC: Yes, sir, and he came by and right as he came by
I noticed that there was a female on the boat, so I got off
of it. He asked the female if everything is okay, and she
had said that I was leaning on her boat and that she wishes
that I would be taken off, and he says “okay ma’am. Do you
want to press charges?”, and she said “no”, and we just
left, sir.
MJ: Would this lady have been Toni Rowe, to your
knowledge?
ACC: I really don’t know her name, sir.
MJ: Do we know it now?
4
DC: Yes, sir.
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: So we know now, he didn’t know it then, but we
know it now?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: I assume her husband or her significant other is
this George Rowe?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: And that they owned this boat?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Just a minute, gentlemen. [Military judge
reviewed the R.C.M. Manual.] All right. If there is
something you want to consult about, I didn't mean to
interrupt.
DC: No, sir.
MJ: Now, when we talked about unlawful entry, I’m
going to repeat these elements for you:
First of all, that on or about 27 June 1999, you
entered the private boat of another, to wit: George and
Toni Rowe;
Two, that such entry was unlawful; and
Three, under the circumstances your conduct was to
the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed
forces, or as [sic] a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces.
Now, first of all, with regard to entry of a
private boat, you understand that entry must [be] effected
before the offense is complete. Do you understand that?
ACC: Yes, sir.
5
MJ: Do you also understand that entry of any part of
the body, even a finger, is sufficient. Do you understand
that?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Under those circumstances, do you believe that you
entered this private boat?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Do you believe and admit that here today?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: Any question in your mind about that?
ACC: No, sir.
MJ: Now, do you understand that the term “unlawfully”
means to enter without consent of a person authorized, or
any person authorized to consent to the entry. Do you
understand that?
ACC: I understand, yes, sir.
MJ: Did anyone authorize[d] to consent to your entry
authorize you to do so?
ACC: No, sir.
MJ: You were just curious?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: And you also admit that your behavior in that
occasion, with respect to that boat, entry of that boat,
that your conduct was to the prejudice of good order and
discipline in the armed forces?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: And that your conduct was conduct of a nature to
bring discredit upon the armed forces?
ACC: Yes, sir.
6
MJ: And that that prejudice and good order was
reasonably direct and an obvious entry to good order and
discipline [sic]?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: And finally, that your conduct was of the nature
to harm the reputation of the service or lower it in public
esteem, is that correct?
ACC: Yes, sir.
MJ: It certainly didn’t do anything for this civilian
lady out there on that boat, did it. . . .
* * *
MJ: Lieutenant Larson, do you wish me to conduct any
further inquiry?
TC: Just one question, sir.
MJ: Uh-huh.
TC: And this covers both Specifications 5 and 2; two
questions I guess. Did Mrs. Rowe express to the accused any
displeasure about him boarding her boat, or to the other
members of the military; and did she express to the accused
or to any other members of the military concern about, for
Specification 2, that the accused was down at the pier and
his actions with Miss Hill?
MJ: Okay, I think I see where you are going. Yes,
Lieutenant?
DC: Sir, I will object to that, that would be evidence
that might--that trial counsel might attempt to bring out
on the aggravation phase. However, in terms of the evidence
itself for the providence inquiry, sir, I believe that it’s
not related to that, sir.
MJ: Well, I’m going to say this, in terms of bringing
the service reputation into disrepute, I’m going to ask the
questions about what her reaction was to his appearance on
the boat.
DC: Yes, sir.
7
MJ: Private Jordan, can you describe what Mrs. Rowe’s
reaction was upon seeing you leaning over the edge of the
boat the way you were?
ACC: She came out, she’s like “hello, hello” like
that, and I’m like “I’m sorry, ma’am” and I got off and
then he came around the corner.
MJ: Did she seem to be upset?
ACC: No, sir.
MJ: Did she seem to be agitated?
ACC: No, sir.
8
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting):
As noted by Senior Judge Sullivan, with whom I agree, the
majority engages in a curious appellate practice by disposing of
this case based on an issue that was not raised or briefed by
either of the parties. Further, the majority’s holding is a
ground-breaking opinion in that it constitutes a radical
departure from over three decades of guilty plea jurisprudence
in the military justice system. Finally, the majority’s view is
inconsistent with our prior case law, RCM 910, Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States (2000 ed.), and United States v.
Vonn, 535 U.S. ___, ___, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1052-53 (2002). For
all of the above procedural and substantive reasons, I must
respectfully dissent.
Procedurally, the majority has decided this case based upon
an allegedly incomplete providence inquiry concerning whether
appellant’s conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline
or service discrediting, an issue that was not raised or briefed
before either our Court or the court below. Essentially, the
majority has specified and decided an issue without allowing the
parties the opportunity to be heard on that issue. Following
good appellate practice, we should return the case to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy. He can then decide whether to
dismiss Specification 5 of Charge III and remand the case to the
Court of Criminal Appeals for sentence reassessment, or to
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
return the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for that court
to determine whether there was an adequate providence inquiry
concerning whether appellant’s conduct was prejudicial to good
order and discipline or service discrediting. At a minimum, the
majority should formally specify the issue, order briefs from
the parties, and preserve the option for additional oral
argument before the Court, as we recently ordered in United
States v. Baker, 56 MJ 165 (2001).
As to the substance of the majority’s opinion, they cite no
case where this Court has required more than an admission from
an accused that his or her conduct was prejudicial to good order
and discipline or service discrediting.1 This is not a case in
which appellant argues that his conduct was not prejudicial to
good order and discipline or service discreting. Indeed, it is
just the opposite. If appellant wanted to contest whether his
conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service
discrediting, he had that opportunity by entering a plea of not
guilty.
In guilty plea jurisprudence, our Court now stands alone,
and out of step with our own as well as other federal court
precedents. For more than three decades, we have ordered
1
See United v. Key, No. 01-0646, ___ MJ ___ n.* (2002)(Crawford, C.J.,
concurring in the result).
2
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
military judges to inquire into the factual basis of guilty
pleas,2 in order to achieve the objectives of McCarthy v.
United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969), and Boykin v. Alabama, 395
U.S. 238 (1969) -- to ensure that any guilty plea is both
knowing and voluntary. See RCM 910, supra; Vonn, supra; United
States v. Seybold, 979 F.2d 582, 586-89 (7th Cir. 1992). A mere
reading of the elements of the offense, accompanied by a bare-
bones response from an accused that he understands those
elements, is not sufficient to establish a knowing, voluntary
plea. See United States v. Terry, 21 USCMA 442, 45 CMR 216
(1972).
In determining the legitimacy of a guilty plea, we have
required a discussion of the facts underlying the criminal
accusation. We have never required military judges to perform
an in-depth inquiry concerning the meaning of “service
discrediting” or conduct “prejudicial to good order and
discipline in the military.” In fact, one could say the
opposite is true. See United States v. Sweet, 42 MJ 183 (1995).
Contrary to the majority’s assertion, there was much more to
this providence inquiry than the military judge expounding
“legal conclusions with which appellant was asked to agree
without any admissions from him to support them.” ___ MJ at
(9).
2
See United States v. Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247 (1969).
3
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
The impact of the majority’s opinion is to place an
unnecessary burden on the military justice system. In light of
this Court’s apparent rejection of three decades of its own
precedents and other federal court decisions, future providence
inquiries should now be accompanied by detailed stipulations of
fact, or when such are not forthcoming, inquiries by military
judges that chronicle on the record the manner in which an
accused’s conduct violates Articles 134 and satisfies the
majority’s new providence inquiry standard. Practitioners will
certainly be justified in questioning the appropriateness and
wisdom of the majority judicially mandating so significant a
change to guilty plea jurisprudence.
Because there is no substantial basis in law and fact for
questioning this knowing, voluntary guilty plea, see United
States v. Prater, 32 MJ 433, 436 (CMA 1991), I respectfully
dissent.
4
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
SULLIVAN, Senior Judge (dissenting):
The practice of this Court has been to uphold guilty pleas
where an accused’s providence inquiry “indicates not only that
the accused himself believes he is guilty but also that the
factual circumstances as revealed by the accused himself
objectively support that plea . . . .” United States v.
Davenport, 9 MJ 364, 367 (CMA 1980), cited in United States v.
Boddie, 49 MJ 310, 312 (1998). The majority holds that the plea
inquiry in this case does “not objectively” support a finding
“that appellant’s conduct was service discrediting”. __ MJ at
(11). I disagree.
In my view, the entire plea inquiry must be considered on
this question. Appellant admitted that “at or near the Port of
Silverdale, located at Silverdale, Washington, on or about 27
June 1999, [he] unlawfully board[ed] the private boat of George
and Toni Rowe, civilians.” __ MJ at (3n.2). He further admitted
that his conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline in
the armed forces and was conduct of a nature to bring discredit
upon the armed forces. (R.68)
These admissions, however, do not stand alone in the record
of trial. As a factual basis for this guilty plea, appellant
further admitted that he was on restriction on the day of the
incident and he broke that restriction by going to the port of
Silverdale. (R.42) Moreover, he stated that he was accompanied by
another Marine and a 15-year-old daughter of a Chief Petty
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
Officer at the time of the offense. (R.70) This young girl was
the key figure in three of appellant’s other charged offenses
(two “no contact” orders violations and one barracks guest
violation). Finally, appellant stated that he was discovered in
the act of unlawful entry by the civilian owner of the boat and
that a roving Marine patrol officer had to eventually resolve
this matter with the civilian boat owner. (R.65) Surely, a
public disorder involving a Marine (who is unlawfully off base)
and a civilian which necessitated action by military police to
smooth civilian and military relations fits the requirement of
military disorder or service discrediting conduct. See William
Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 731 (1920 Reprint)
(disorderly conduct in town). The majority leaves these
important facts out in making its analysis. Facts ignored,
however, do not disappear. As Aldous Huxley has said, “Facts do
not cease to exist because they are ignored.”*
In addition, unlike the majority, I would answer the granted
issues in this case. The granted issues (whether the boat was a
place of habitation and whether appellant entered the boat) were
largely questions of fact that should have been raised at the
trial level. There, the Government could have put on evidence to
resolve whether this sailboat was a place of habitation and
whether appellant made an entry by leaning on the railing of the
sailboat. Accordingly, I would reject appellant’s belated
factual arguments concerning the validity of his guilty pleas.
*
Proper Studies (1927).
2
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
See generally United States v. Harrison, 26 MJ 474, 476 (CMA
1998) (post-trial speculation on the validity of guilty pleas
should not normally be countenanced).
The boat in question was twenty-five feet long, with a cabin
which was capable of being lived in, and it was inhabited at the
time of the entry. Moreover, in response to a question from the
military judge as to whether there was “any evidence that people
were using it [the sailboat] as a place [of] habitation,”
appellant answered in the affirmative after consulting with his
lawyer. (R.63) No more was required for purposes of the military
criminal offense of unlawful entry. See United States v.
Gillin, 8 USCMA 669, 25 CMR 173 (1958). Accordingly, on this
basis, I would affirm the conviction.
There is one final concern I have with the law that is being
made in this case. Appellant pled guilty to unlawful entry of a
sailboat. This conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Court of
Criminal Appeals. Our Court granted two legal issues regarding
whether the sailboat was a dwelling and whether leaning on a
boat’s railing was an entry for the purposes of the crime of
unlawful entry. The majority dodges these issues, yet reverses
this Article 134 conviction based on an issue not raised by
appellant at the trial level nor at the Court of Criminal
Appeals. This issue, moreover, was not raised nor briefed nor
argued at our Court.
This surprise reversal by the majority in this case is based
primarily on the three-two decision of this Court in United
3
United States v. Jordan, No. 01-0483/MC
States v. Outhier, 45 MJ 326, 331 (1996). The portion of Outhier
relied upon by the majority states: “Mere conclusions of law
recited by an accused are insufficient to provide a factual basis
for a guilty plea.” Id. This holding in turn is based on the
two-one decision of this Court in United States v. Terry, 21
USCMA 442, 45 CMR 216 (1972).
If one looks at Terry, one can see that the Terry case is a
far different case than the instant case. In Terry, the judge
merely read aloud each specification and the elements and the
accused said he understood them, then the judge accepted the
plea. Id. A more “bare bones” plea could not be imagined. In
contrast, the transcript of the plea in the instant case was 67
pages in length, covering multiple charges, to include
appellant’s association with the 15-year old daughter of a Navy
non-commissioned officer. As I have pointed out above, there was
a sufficient factual basis to find that the unlawful entry guilty
plea was supported in the record with regard to the service
discrediting element.
4