CAAF today granted review of this issue:
WHERE THE ARTICLE 134 CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SPECIFICATIONS OF WHICH APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED DID NOT ALLEGE THAT THE IMAGES DEPICTED ACTUAL MINORS AND WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE ADVISED APPELLANT DURING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY THAT “THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE IMAGES IN THIS CASE INCLUDE ACTUAL IMAGES OF MINORS,” IS THE MAXIMUM AUTHORIZED CONFINEMENT FOR EACH SPECIFICATION LIMITED TO FOUR MONTHS?
United States v. Finch, __ M.J. __, N0. 13-0353/AF (C.A.A.F. May 16, 2013). AFCCA’s unpublished decision in the case is available here. The issue is similar to that in AFCCA’s recent published opinion in Slagle, which we noted here.
Insert familiar disclosure here. I now have a 100% grant rate for supps using the phrase, “baby Wookiee.”