Name: Charles W. Davis
Case: United States v. Davis No. 06-6001
Date Of Appeal: February 8, 2006
Plea: Mixed Pleas On Multiple Charges
Charges: Indecent Acts On A Minor
Military Branch: U.S. Airforce
Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO
Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Davis was tried at a general court-martial with members on charges resulting from the sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, whom he adopted, over a seven-year period. After mixed pleas, he was found guilty of rape of a child, rape, forcible sodomy upon a child, forcible sodomy, indecent liberties with a child, and indecent liberties, in violation of Articles 120, 125, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 925, and 934 (2000), respectively.
The victim in this case was appellant’s stepdaughter, J.D. The charges arose following appellant’s arrest at a time J.D. had already left home to attend college. Appellant tried to visit J.D. at her university. She did not want to see him and called the university security police. The police responded, and after finding a loaded weapon in appellant’s vehicle, arrested him. They also found a number of nude Polaroid photographs of his daughter, some of which captured appellant engaging in various sexual acts with her. These photographs were the basis for the charges of committing indecent acts, and taking indecent liberties with a minor, offenses to which appellant pleaded guilty.
He was sentenced to confinement for life and forfeiture of $2,500.00 pay per month for 24 months. The convening authority approved the sentence, but suspended execution of the forfeitures on the condition that Davis maintain an allotment of all disposable pay and allowances to his wife. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence on December 30, 1997.
The victim in this case testified to a period of sexual abuse which began when she was approximately 9 years old.
Lieutenant Commander Davis was a Naval Flight Officer assigned to the USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65). At the time of trial he was forty-two years old and had completed almost seventeen years of military service. Because he had been passed over for promotion to commander twice, Davis was eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the discretionary Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA).1 Prior to the commencement of proceedings in this case, Davis had applied for retirement under TERA rather than face involuntary separation from the Navy. He was approved for a TERA retirement with an effective date of December 1, 1994. Prior to this retirement date, Davis’s misconduct was discovered and the processing of his TERA retirement was terminated.
During sentencing, Davis made a brief unsworn statement. He informed the members that he had been passed over twice and that he was eligible to retire under TERA. Under questioning from his attorney, Davis indicated that he desired more confinement to offset forfeitures and a dismissal so that he could “save” his retirement and provide for his family. The Government argued for a sentence that included forty years of confinement and a dismissal from the Navy. Defense counsel presented the defense sentencing strategy as follows:
He told you send him to prison, send him for as long as you feel that it’s necessary, but protect his family because he didn’t. The bottom line, that’s what happened, he didn’t protect them, but you have an opportunity to do what he didn’t. And punish him and send him to prison for as long as you think is necessary, add extra years if you -– to give the family money, if you think that you need to balance that, but he asks you to do that, and that’s what we’re asking today. Show some mercy for that family. You don’t have to show mercy for him, put him in jail, show mercy for the family because they need it right now and you’re the only ones that can give him -– give them that.
At the request of the defense, a sentencing instruction was given informing the members that “[a] dismissal deprives one of all retirement benefits[.]” As noted, Davis was sentenced to confinement for life and forfeiture of $2,500 pay per month for twenty-four months, but no dismissal.
Review pursuant to Article 62(b), UCMJ, of Government Appeal of a ruling in General Court-Martial convened by Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, VA.