UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Patrick P. CAMPBELL, Senior Chief Electrician’s Mate
U.S. Navy, Appellant
No. 08-0660
Crim. App. No. 200700643
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued October 7, 2009
Decided December 10, 2009
STUCKY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which EFFRON,
C.J., and BAKER, ERDMANN, and RYAN, JJ., joined.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Dillon J. Ambrose, JAGC, USN
(argued).
For Appellee: Colonel Louis J. Puleo, USMC (argued); Lieutenant
Elliot W. Oxman, JAGC, USN, and Brian K. Keller, Esq.
Military Judge: Tammy P. Tideswell
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Campbell, No. 08-0660/NA
Judge STUCKY delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted review of three issues raised by the decision of
the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
(CCA), as follows:
I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REASSESSING
APPELLANT’S SENTENCE, AS (1) ITS REASSESSMENT
CALCULUS WAS BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SPECIFICATIONS WERE MERGED;
(2) IT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO ORDER
A SENTENCE REHEARING IN LIGHT OF APPELLANT BEING
SENTENCED UPON TWICE THE AMOUNT OF SPECIFICATIONS
AS APPROPRIATE; AND (3) THE UNDERLYING LOGIC USED
TO NOT REDUCE APPELLANT’S SENTENCE WAS FAULTY.
II. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
POSSESSION OF THE SAME IMAGES OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY ON DIFFERENT MEDIA CAN BE CHARGED AS
SEPARATE CRIMES UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.
III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT
THE THREE SPECIFICATIONS UNDER CHARGE II WERE NOT
“FACIALLY DUPLICATIVE.”
We hold that Appellant’s unconditional guilty plea waived
Issue II on appeal, and that the specifications were not
“facially duplicative” under Issue III. However, we hold that
the CCA erred in part on Issue I and remand for sentence
reassessment.
I.
In exchange for the convening authority’s agreement to cap
the period of confinement she would approve, and other financial
provisions, Appellant pled guilty, before a special court-
martial consisting of a military judge sitting alone, to
2
United States v. Campbell, No. 08-0660/NA
violating a general order, Article 92, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 892 (2006), by (1) storing
pornographic images on the hard drive of a government computer,
and (2) using a government computer to search for adult and
child pornography. He also pled guilty to three specifications
of possession of child pornography under Article 134, UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. § 934 (2006), as follows: (1) on the hard drive of a
government computer at his workplace, in violation of the Child
Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2006);
(2) on six rewritable media disks, on base, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252A; and (3) on his home computer (which was
prejudicial to good order and discipline or service
discrediting). Both of the specifications alleging a violation
of § 2252A also alleged that Appellant’s conduct was prejudicial
to good order and discipline or service discrediting. The
military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas.
During sentencing, upon Appellant’s motion, the military
judge considered the two specifications of Charge I (Article 92)
“as sort of one specification together just for sentencing
purposes under the theory of multiplication.” The military
judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge,
confinement for four months, and reduction to the lowest
enlisted grade. The convening authority approved the adjudged
sentence.
3
United States v. Campbell, No. 08-0660/NA
The CCA was under the impression that the military judge
had found specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II (Article 134)
multiplicious for sentencing when in fact she had consolidated
the two specifications of Charge I. See United States v.
Campbell, 66 M.J. 578, 584 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2008). Then,
finding “the prejudice to good order and discipline, or
likelihood of discredit to the armed forces, to be identical for
the conduct alleged in all three specifications of Charge II,”
the CCA found that all of the Article 134 offenses were
multiplicious for sentencing,1 but nevertheless affirmed the
findings and the approved sentence. Id.
II.
Appellant asserts that his two convictions under Article
134 for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A should have been merged
because both specifications concerned the possession of the same
child pornography images, although on two separate media. He
contends that because § 2252A made criminal the possession of
“any” media containing child pornography, “the proper ‘unit of
prosecution’ [under § 2252A] cannot be ascertained,” requiring,
under the rule of lenity, a single prosecution for all media.
In addition, he asserts that, as each of the three
specifications alleging possession of child pornography under
1
There is neither citation nor explanation as to how the court
arrived at this conclusion.
4
United States v. Campbell, No. 08-0660/NA
Article 134 (including the two alleged as violations of § 2252A)
is factually the same as the others, two specifications should
be set aside and dismissed. Both issues sound in multiplicity.
By pleading guilty, an accused does more than admit that he
did the various acts alleged in a specification; “he is
admitting guilt of a substantive crime.” United States v.
Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570 (1989). “Just as a defendant who
pleads guilty to a single count admits guilt to the specified
offense, so too does [an accused] who pleads guilty to two
counts with facial allegations of distinct offenses concede that
he has committed two separate crimes.” Id. Appellant pled
guilty to each of the three specifications. Instead of entering
guilty pleas, Appellant had the opportunity to challenge the
theory of the specifications and attempt to show that the
possession of the child pornography images amounted to only one
offense. He “chose not to and hence relinquished that
entitlement” in the absence of the specifications being facially
duplicative. Id. at 571; see United States v. Ramsey, 52 M.J.
322, 324 (C.A.A.F. 2000); United States v. Lloyd, 46 M.J. 19, 23
(C.A.A.F. 1997).
The three specifications in question are as follows:
Specification 1: In that [Appellant] . . . did, on or
about 21 June 2006, at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton,
WA, land owned by the United States Government,
knowingly possess on his government computer account
child pornography images in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
5
United States v. Campbell, No. 08-0660/NA
2252A, including: 24803531.jpg, which conduct was
prejudicial to good order and discipline or likely to
bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Specification 2: In that [Appellant] . . . did, on or
about 22 June 2006, at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton,
WA, land owned by the United States Government,
knowingly possess approximately 9 TDK Compact Disc
Rewritable media discs labeled “mode,” “mode 2,” “mode
3,” “mode 4,” “mode 5,” “mode 7,” “mode 8,” “mode 9,”
and “mode 10,” containing child pornography images in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, including: lsm04-08-
040.jpg, and lsm04-01-074.jpg, which conduct was
prejudicial to good order and discipline or likely to
bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Specification 3: In that [Appellant] . . . did, on or
about 23 June 2006, at or near Port Orchard, WA,
knowingly possess on his home computer images of child
pornography including: 282808320.jpg and
446799872.jpg, which conduct was prejudicial to good
order and discipline or likely to bring discredit upon
the armed forces.
(Emphasis added to words not contained in the other
specifications.)
Appellant failed in his burden to show that the three
specifications of Charge II were “facially duplicative.” The
specifications are not factually the same. Each of the three
specifications alleges a different date and a different medium
on which the images of child pornography were possessed. In
addition, specification 3 alleges that the media on which
Appellant possessed the child pornography were located at
Appellant’s off-base home, not as in specifications 1 and 2 that
alleged his possession occurred at his government office on a
military installation. Thus, each requires proof of a fact not
6
United States v. Campbell, No. 08-0660/NA
required to prove the others. United States v. Pauling, 60 M.J.
91, 94 (C.A.A.F. 2004).2 As Appellant pled guilty
unconditionally and the specifications are not facially
duplicative, Appellant waived his ability to contest whether he
should have been charged with only one specification of
possessing child pornography.
III.
Appellant asserts that the lower court erred in its
sentence reassessment because (1) it misunderstood the
specifications that the military judge had merged, (2) it should
have ordered a rehearing due to the exaggerated number of
specifications alleged, and (3) the logic the court used to
affirm the adjudged sentence was faulty. The Government
concedes that the CCA misunderstood which specifications had
been merged, and that a remand would be appropriate, but further
argues that there was no prejudice.
The parties are correct -- the CCA did not recognize that
the military judge had consolidated the two specifications of
Charge I, rather than the two specifications of Charge II. It
2
Appellant further argues that even if conviction for more than
one offense is not barred, there was an unreasonable
multiplication of charges in this case. See United States v.
Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334, 337 (C.A.A.F. 2001). This issue is not
before us on appeal.
7
United States v. Campbell, No. 08-0660/NA
may well be the case that, in this judge-alone special court-
martial, the CCA’s error was harmless. However, it did result
in the lower court’s laboring under a misapprehension of the
total number of specifications involved. Accordingly, we will
remand for the CCA to reassess the sentence. Article 66(c),
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2006); United States v. Sales, 22 M.J.
305, 307 (C.M.A. 1986).
IV.
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court
of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to the findings. The case is
remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a sentence
reassessment in light of our disposition of Issue I.
8