The CAAF published a decision in United States v. St. Blanc, today.
Ryan writes for the court, with Baker concurring and dissenting in part.
We granted Appellant’s petition for review to consider whether Appellant’s decision to seek trial by military judge alone was knowing and voluntary when his counsel “misadvised” him of the maximum punishment that he faced.
We conclude that Appellant’s decision to choose trial by military judge alone complied with Rule for
Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 903, and was knowing and voluntary. We remand, however, for resentencing in light of United States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
Yesterday CAAF granted review of this issue:
Whether Appellant’s forum selection was not made knowingly and voluntarily because he was misadvised by all parties regarding the maximum punishment for possession of what “appears to be” child pornography.
United States v. St. Blanc, No. 10-0178/AF (C.A.A.F. Aug. 12, 2010).
There are two AFCCA decisions in the case due to an initial remand for a new CA’s action. Here’s the second AFCCA opinion in the case. But for purposes of the granted issue, it’s the first AFCCA opinion that’s important. It’s here.
CAAF ordered that briefs be filed, though the issue looks like a trailer to United States v. Beaty, which we discussed here.