In United States v. Soto, No. 10-0397, the parties agreed to a PTA that required the accused to request a BCD. Under the PTA, no sentence other than a BCD could be approved. The provision requiring the accused to request a BCD was included in the maximum sentence appendix to the PTA. CAAF today invalidated the finding of guilty not because a PTA can’t include a term requiring the accused to request a BCD (CAAF reserves judgment on that question), but because it should have been part of the PTA itself rather than the maximum sentence appendix and it should have been discussed on the record before the accused accepted the accused’s guilty plea. Under the facts of this case, CAAF found that the appropriate remedy was to set aside the findings and sentence. It’s a quite narrow opinion.
Judge Ryan wrote for a unanimous court.