Name: Patrick Paul Campbell
Case: United States v. Campbell No. 08-0660
Date Of Appeal: October 7, 2009
Conviction Date: May 1, 2007
Plea: Guilty
Charges: possessing child pornography
Military Branch: U.S. Navy
Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? Yes, Utah
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
Patrick Paul Campbell
Senior Chief Electrician’s Mate U.S. Navy
Convicted Sex Offender
Possession Of Child Pornography
We hold that Appellant’s unconditional guilty plea waived Issue II on appeal, and that the specifications were not “facially duplicative” under Issue III. However, we hold that the CCA erred in part on Issue I and remand for sentence reassessment. I.
In exchange for the convening authority’s agreement to cap the period of confinement she would approve, and other financial provisions, Appellant pled guilty, before a special courtmartial consisting of a military judge sitting alone violating a general order, Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 892 (2006), by
(1) storing pornographic images on the hard drive of a government computer, and
(2) using a government computer to search for adult and child pornography.
He also pled guilty to three specifications of possession of child pornography under Article 134, UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. § 934 (2006), as follows:
(1) on the hard drive of a government computer at his workplace, in violation of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2006);
(2) on six rewritable media disks, on base, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A; and
(3) on his home computer (which was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting). Both of the specifications alleging a violation of § 2252A also alleged that Appellant’s conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting.
The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas. During sentencing, upon Appellant’s motion, the military judge considered the two specifications of Charge I (Article 92) “as sort of one specification together just for sentencing purposes under the theory of multiplication.” The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for four months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence.
