United States v. Sergeant TIMOTHY S. REFFNER

• Court: Army Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: March 26, 2009
• Docket: ARMY 20080781
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before SULLIVAN, COOK, and BAIME Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Sergeant TIMOTHY S. REFFNER United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20080781

Headquarters, United States Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood Charles Hayes, Military Judge Colonel Steven E. Walburn, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Major Grace M. Gallagher, JA; Major Julie Caruso Haines, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Francis C. Kiley, JA (on brief).

26 March 2009

------------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION -------------------------------------

Per Curiam:

Upon review of this case submitted on its merits, under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], we note an error in the military judge’s advice to appellant during the providence inquiry. Specifically, the military judge failed to inform appellant that the maximum punishment which could be adjudged based on appellant’s pleas of guilty included reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. To compound his error, the military judge sitting as a general court-martial then adjudged a sentence that included reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. We are convinced under the circumstances of this case that the omission of the possible punishment of reduction to the lowest enlisted grade did not create a “substantial misunderstanding” on appellant’s part such as would render his pleas improvident. See United States v. Harden, 1 M.J. 258, 259 (C.M.A. 1976); United States v. Poole, 26 M.J. 272 (C.M.A. 1988).

On consideration of the entire record, including the issues personally specified by appellant, the findings of guilty are affirmed. Reassessing the sentence of the basis of the error noted and the entire record, applying the principles of United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v. Moffeit, 63 M.J. 40, 43 (C.A.A.F. 2006), including Judge Baker’s concurring opinion, we affirm only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for eighteen months and a bad-conduct discharge. All rights, privileges, and property of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of his sentence set aside by this decision are ordered restored. See Article 58b(c) and 75(a), UCMJ.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. Clerk of Court