Charles Edward Natkie United States Air Force Convicted Sex Offender Rape And Indecent Assault

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Women > Charles Edward Natkie

Name: Charles Edward Natkie

Case: State Of Michigan v. Charles Edward Natkie No. 235343

Date Of Conviction: 1994

Plea: Not Guilty

Charges: Rape And Indecent Assault

Military Branch: U.S. Airforce

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO

In 1994, after a military court-martial, defendant was convicted of rape and indecent assault at Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany. Captain Peter Richards represented defendant at the court-martial. According to the voting procedures employed by the military court, to find defendant guilty, two-thirds, or four out of a total of five members had to concur. The members of the court-martial found defendant guilty of rape and indecent assault.

Although the voting results are not disclosed in the record, defendant contends that he was not convicted by unanimous vote. Defendant indicated that Captain Richards told him that the rest of the members pressured one member of the court-martial because he voted to acquit defendant. Defendant was sentenced to five years’ confinement and received a dishonorable discharge.

In March, 2000, defendant was charged with two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit a larceny, MCL 750.110, one count of larceny in a building, MCL 750.360, and one count of failure to register as a sex offender, MCL 28.729(1)(a).

The prosecution served the requisite notice that it would seek to enhance defendant’s sentence as a second habitual offender based on the 1994 conviction by the military court-martial.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny in exchange for dismissal of the other charges. He acknowledged that he was convicted of rape by court-martial. The court sentenced defendant, as a second habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to a consecutive term of twenty-eight months to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each count.

Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for resentencing with the court on the basis that his prior convictions for rape and indecent assault, which were obtained by a nonunanimous, five-member military court-martial, could not be used to enhance his sentence.

Defendant argued thatthe Legislature did not intend for such a conviction to be used for sentence enhancement because it could not be “obtained” in Michigan. After conducting a hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion concluding that defendant’s habitual offender conviction was valid because the conviction on which it was based would constitute a felony if perpetrated in Michigan.

Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted his conviction as a second habitual offender, MCL 769.10, and the trial court’s order denying his motion for resentencing. We affirm.