(concurring):
With respect to Appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective by conceding guilt in his opening statement and closing argument as to a charge in a case involving multiple offenses, I agree that any error was not prejudicial under the second prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The question of whether, in the military justice system, the consent of an accused is required prior to such a concession is a matter that may be deferred until a case presents a more clearly developed record on that issue. See *220Article 45(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 845(a) (2000); United States v. Honeycutt, 29 M.J. 416, 419 n. 4 (C.M.A. 1990); United States v. Haye, 29 M.J. 213, 215 (C.M.A.1989); United States v. Bertelson, 3 M.J. 314, 317 (C.M.A.1977); United States v. Care, 18 C.M.A. 535, 538-39, 40 C.M.R. 247, 250-51 (1969); Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 811(c); R.C.M. 906(b)(10); R.C.M. 910.