Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

In Robles, there are two issues of interest.

 (3) whether a provision in Appellant’s plea agreement providing that dismissal of certain charges and specifications would ripen into dismissal with prejudice “upon completion of appellate review where the findings and sentence have been upheld” is void or otherwise unenforceable[.]
. . . 
​We have carefully considered issue (3) and find Appellant is not entitled to relief. See United States v. Goldsmith, No. ACM 40148, 2023 CCA LEXIS 8, at *15 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 11 Jan. 2023) (unpub. op.) (finding plea agreement term—requiring the convening authority to dismiss the additional charges and specifications with prejudice “upon completion of appellate review where the findings and sentence have been upheld”—permissible because it does not violate law or public policy).

It's hard to see how the term is prejudicial to the accused without seeing the briefs. The practice is similar in federal court. The federal courts also allow a waiver of appeal provision in the PTA.

(1) whether the military judge erred in admitting victim impact statements[.]
. . . 
​Appellant contends that the military judge abused his discretion when he admitted written unsworn statements by HoP, HP, and CJ during presentencing proceedings over trial defense counsel’s objections. Appellant argues now, as he did during presentencing, that a victim’s right to be reasonably heard is “tethered to” the physical presence of the crime victim at the presentencing proceeding pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1001(a)(3)(A). We disagree and find that the military judge did not abuse his discretion and that no relief is warranted.

The Appellant pled guilty IAW a PTA, and so the MJ did the sentencing. Not sure how this form over substance argument prejudices the Appellant? The defense had objected to some of the content in the VIS which the victim redacted.