Name: Christopher D .Guleff
Case: United States v. Guleff No. ACM 37542
Date Of Conviction: July 28, 2009
Plea: Guilty
Charges: possessing child pornography
Military Branch: U.S. Air Force
Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO
Sentence adjudged 28 July 2009 by GCM convened at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. Military Judge: Le T. Zimmerman (sitting alone).
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 1 year, and reduction to E-1.
The appellant pled guilty pursuant to a pretrial agreement to wrongfully and knowingly possessing “what appear to be” visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of Clauses 1 or 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial sentenced him to a badconduct discharge, confinement for one year, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. A pretrial agreement capped confinement at 15 months and limited approval of any adjudged punitive discharge to a bad-conduct discharge, with no other limitations. The convening authority did not approve any forfeitures, but approved the remaining sentence as adjudged.
As he did at trial, the appellant challenges the military judge’s determination of the maximum punishment. He argues that the language of the specification alleging possession of “what appear to be” visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct precludes application of the Federal law maximum of ten years under the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Further, the maximum punishment should be for disorderly conduct – confinement for four months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for four months.
The appellant is correct. In United States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39, 45 (C.A.A.F. 26 April 2011), our superior court held that the maximum authorized punishment for a charge of possessing “what appears to be” child pornography--as opposed to possessing actual child pornography--is punishable as a simple disorder which has a maximum authorized punishment of four months confinement and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for four months. The charge and specification upon which the appellant was convicted uses the same critical language as found in Beaty, so the maximum authorized punishment is the same: confinement for four months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for four months. Being far in excess of the maximum authorized, the imposed sentence here materially prejudiced the appellant.
Although the maximum punishment is substantially reduced, we are confident that the military judge would have adjudged the maximum authorized for disorderly conduct based on the facts presented in this case.
The appellant stipulated as fact that he possessed seven images of actual minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The child in five of the possessed images has been identified by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as being 13 years old at the time she was photographed. Describing these five images, the appellant told the military judge that in three of the images the young girl is nude, her breasts and genitals are exposed, and that some of the photographs are “bondage type” that show the girl “on the floor [with] her hands bound above her head.” Considering the evidence in the record, a reassessed sentence of confinement for four months and reduction to the grade of E-1 purges the record of error.
The findings of guilt are affirmed. The convening authority disapproved the adjudged forfeitures based on the needs of the appellant’s family. Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for four months and reduction to the grade of E-1 is approved. The findings and reassessed sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant exists.
Because the approved finding of guilt is a simple disorderly conduct offense rather than the analogous offense of possession of child pornography under Federal law, the collateral consequence of sexual offender registration should be again reviewed by appellant and his counsel.
An Unofficial Site
Of
United States Military
Sexual Offender
Conviction Records
Not Associated With The U.S. Military Or Government
An Unofficial Site
Of United States Military
Sexual Offender
Conviction Records
Not Associated With The U.S. Military Or Government
Christopher D. Guleff
Staff Sergeant U.S. Air Force
Convicted Sex Offender
Possession Of Child Pornography
