UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Francis L. FRELIX-VANN, Captain
U.S. Army, Appellant
No. 99-0744
Crim. App. No. 9701014
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued October 3, 2000
Decided August 28, 2001
SULLIVAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GIERKE, EFFRON, and BAKER, JJ., joined. CRAWFORD, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Counsel
For Appellant: Captain Stephanie L. Haines (argued); Colonel Adele H. Odegard, Major Scott R. Morris, and Captain Donald P. Chisholm (on brief); Lieutenant Colonel David A. Mayfield, Captain Jodi E. Terwilliger-Stacey, and Captain Kirsten V. Campbell-Brunson.
For Appellee: Captain Arthur L. Rabin (argued); Lieutenant Colonel Eugene R. Milhizer and Major Patricia A. Ham (on brief); Lieutenant Colonel Edith M. Rob and Captain Troy A. Smith.
Military Judge: Gary W. Jewell
Appellant was tried by a military judge sitting alone as a general court-martial at Mannheim and Kaiserslautern, Germany, in May and June of 1997. In accordance with her pleas, she was found guilty of larceny and conduct unbecoming an officer, in violation of Articles 121 and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921 and 933. She was sentenced to a dismissal. On August 8, 1997, the convening authority approved this sentence, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision. United States v. Frelix-Vann, No. 9701014 (Army Ct. Crim. App. April 9, 1999).
On October 28, 1999, this Court granted review on the following issue:
Appellant pleaded guilty to the following offenses at her court-martial:
SPECIFICATION: In that Captain Francis L. Frelix-Vann,
United States Army, did, at Vogelweh Post Exchange and Annex, building
#2013, Kaiserslautern, Germany, on or about 24 January 1997, steal
a package of dog bones, a "Die Hard with a Vengence" video cassette, "Alien
Nation" video cassette, "Predator 2" video cassette, "New Edition" compact
disc, "LL Cool J" compact disc [of some value], a black figurine
with instrument, and a Arista message cut off of a value of over $100.00
the property of Army and Air Force Exchange Services.
CHARGE II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 133.
SPECIFICATION: In that Captain Francis L. Frelix-Vann,
United States Army, did, at Vogelweh Post Exchange and Annex, building
#2013, Kaiserslautern, Germany, on or about 24 January 1997, wrongfully
and dishonorably steal a package of dog bones, a "Die Hard with a Vengence"
video cassette, "Alien Nation" video cassette, "Predator 2" video cassette,
"New Edition" compact disc, "LL Cool J" compact disc, a black figurine
with instrument, and a Arista message cut off.
The Court of Criminal Appeals succinctly described the facts of this case:
The two specifications at issue contained similar language in alleging the misconduct that was the basis for the two offenses. She entered pleas of guilty at her court-martial. During the providence inquiry, appellant agreed that the elements of the charged offenses accurately described her misconduct. She admitted stealing the items from the exchange, and also agreed that her conduct was wrongful, dishonorable, and unbecoming an officer and a gentlewoman. Pursuant to a defense motion, the military judge treated the offenses as multiplicious for sentencing.
___ ___ ___
The granted issue in this case asks whether separate convictions can be sustained for larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ, and conduct unbecoming an officer by committing the very same larceny, in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. 1 In United States v. Cherukuri, supra, this Court recently held that two convictions could not be sustained for an Article 134, UCMJ, violation and an Article 133, UCMJ, violation based on the same act. See also United States v. Rodriguez, 18 MJ 363, 369 (CMA 1984). We think the same conclusion is required for dual convictions for the same act under Articles 133 and 121, UCMJ. See also United States v. Timberlake, 18 MJ 371 (CMA 1984).
The appellate court below generally opined that separate convictions could be sustained in this situation because each offense had a different statutory element of proof. It then reasoned that larceny requires proof of criminal conduct, while conduct unbecoming an officer requires proof of acts or omissions which may not be criminal in their own right. We are not persuaded that this elemental distinction is accurate (see United States v. Foster, 40 MJ 140, 146 (CMA 1994) (holding that realistic approach to elements analysis required)) or legally sufficient to infer that Congress intended separate convictions, at least where the criminal conduct is also the sole basis for the conduct unbecoming charge. See United States v. Waits, 32 MJ 274, 275 (CMA 1991); United States v. Taylor, 23 MJ 314, 318 (CMA 1987); United States v. Deland, 22 MJ 70, 75 (CMA 1986); United States v. Timberlake, supra.
United States v. Teters, 37 MJ 370, as it has been applied in subsequent cases, leads to the same conclusion. That decision obviously was not the last word on the subject of multiplicity. In United States v. Weymouth, 43 MJ 329, 340 (1995), this Court eschewed a strict statutory elements analysis in all cases. This Court said:
Moreover, under United States v. Teters, supra, since only one offense (conduct unbecoming by committing larceny) has a different element than the other (larceny), these offenses were not separate. See United States v. Cherukuri, 53 MJ at 71.
This type of charging situation is in no way unique to military law. In Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 693-95 (1980), the Supreme Court addressed a similar question with regard to felony murder and the underlying felony. It stated:
8/ Contrary to the view of the dissenting opinion, we do not in this case apply the Blockburger rule to the facts alleged in a particular indictment. Post, at 708-712. We have simply concluded that, for purposes of imposing cumulative sentences under D.C. Code § 23-112, Congress intended rape to be considered a lesser offense included within the offense of a killing in the course of rape.
The appellate court below attempted to support its contrary conclusion in this case by citing older cases from our Court which sustained convictions of offenses under Article 133, UCMJ, and other codal articles. It stated:
We note, however, that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, broke new ground in the area of double jeopardy law. There, an accused was found guilty of violating two federal statutes, 18 USC § 922(h)(1) and 18 USC App. § 1202(a)(1) for possessing the same weapon. The Supreme Court set aside one of the convictions, relying on the Blockburger rule to discern Congress’ intent with respect to separate convictions under these overlapping statutes. Then, it held clearly for the first time that the second unauthorized conviction must be set aside because it "has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored." Id. at 865.
This 1985 holding by the Supreme Court conflicted with earlier decisions of our Court, like United States v. Middleton, 12 USCMA 54, 58-59, 30 CMR 54, 58-59 (1960), and the other cases cited by the appellate court below. As indicated in Middleton, supra, they clearly followed the earlier view of this Court that even multiplicious specifications could be affirmed:
The remaining question before us is which conviction should be set aside to cure the multiplicity error in this case. Cf. United States v. Cherukuri, supra at 74 (Government given option to choose one specification under Article 133, UCMJ, or four specifications under Article 134, UCMJ). Conduct unbecoming an officer is an extremely serious offense whose commission strikes at the very core of leadership and integrity in our armed services. See generally United States v. Maderia, 38 MJ 494, 496-97 (CMA 1994); United States v. Frazier, 34 MJ 194 (CMA 1992). Moreover, it is clearly the greater offense in terms of having an additional element of proof than larceny. See Para. 59b(2), Manual, supra. Nevertheless, consistent with Cherukuri, supra, we leave to the Government the decision which conviction to retain. See United States v. Deland, 22 MJ at 75. No additional sentence relief is required, however, because the military judge correctly treated these offenses as multiplicious for sentencing. (R. 10) See United States v. Britton, 47 MJ at 199.
The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for action consistent with this opinion.
1 Appellant, at trial, objected that these offenses were multiplicious for sentencing. (R. 10, 29-30) We conclude that the failure to object at trial on the basis of multiplicity for findings did not forfeit appellant’s multiplicity claim, in light of the facial duplicativeness of these charges. See United States v. Harwood, 46 MJ 26, 28 (1997).
2 The current version of this Manual provision is identical.
3 We expressly reject the suggestions of the separate opinion below that Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985), does not apply at courts-martial, or that United States v. Teters, 37 MJ 370 (CMA 1993), prohibits the application of Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), in the military justice system.
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting):
I dissent because the majority treats Article 133 as a residual offense, that is, if an offense is charged and results in a conviction under another article, it may not be separately charged and result in a conviction under Article 133. Under a statutory elements test or a pleading elements test, Article 121 and Article 133 are not multiplicious. See United States v. Quiroz, No. 00-5004, ___ MJ ___ (2001)(Crawford, C.J., dissenting); see also Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985).