|
Porter is a guilty-plea mental-responsibility case. The opinion turns on three related questions: was the R.C.M. 706 inquiry sufficiently reliable for the plea, is there anything in the record that raised a substantial conflict with the plea, and did trial defense counsel have to do more after receiving the sanity-board report? NMCCA answered all three questions against the appellant and affirmed. Porter can be read as a record-preservation case. Mental-health issues do not defeat a guilty plea merely because they exist. They defeat a plea when they create a substantial conflict with criminal responsibility, competence, voluntariness, or factual guilt. The military judge protected the plea by reopening the inquiry. Trial defense counsel protected themselves by requesting the 706 inquiry. And NMCCA affirmed because the record showed concern, investigation, and resolution—not unresolved doubt. The opinion gives trial judges and appellate courts a straightforward rule of practical litigation: mental-health facts matter, but they do not automatically defeat a guilty plea. The defense must show more than anxiety, depression, unusual behavior, a post hoc disagreement with the examiner, or a theoretical mental-responsibility issue. The record must show a real conflict with the plea. In United States v. Smith, CAAF granted review on whether AFCCA used the wrong standard when it referenced the older Arnold “light most favorable to the Government” language. CAAF noted that Inabinette supplies the proper test: appellate courts ask whether something in the record, as to law or fact, raises a substantial question about the guilty plea. NMCCA did not lean on Arnold. It applied the Inabinette “substantial basis” standard directly. So, after Smith, the standard-of-review point likely strengthens Porter, not Porter’s appellate challenge. The question is not whether the record can be read favorably to the government. The question is whether the record contains a substantial conflict with the guilty plea.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
Editor:
Phil Cave Links
SCOTUS CAAF -Daily Journal -2026 Ops Supplements (NB, these only stay on the site until oral argument is scheduled.) ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA JRAP JRTP UCMJ Index and Legislative History: Uniform Code of Military Justice. Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.) Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.) Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.) MCM 2024 MCM 2023 MCM 2019 MCM 2016 MCM 2012 MCM 1995 UMCJ History Global Reform Army Lawyer JAG Reporter Army Crim. L. Deskbook J. App. Prac. & Pro. Dockets Air Force Art. 32. Trial. Army Art. 32. Trial. Coast Guard Art. 32. Trial. "Records." Navy-Marine Corps Art. 32. Trial. "Records." Archives
May 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed