Name: George Hoffele
Case: United States v. Hoffele ACM 36003
Date Of Conviction: May 27, 2004
Plea: Guilty
Charges: Possessing Child Pornography
Military Branch: U.S. Air Force
Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO
A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted the appellant, consistent with his pleas, of violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully storing, displaying, or transmitting pornographic and sexually explicit images via a government computer and of possessing child pornography,1in violation of Articles 92, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 934.
Relying on Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) and its progeny, the appellant asserts that his pleas of guilty to possessing child pornography were improvident
During the providence inquiry, the military judge correctly instructed the appellant on each of the elements of the offense and properly defined the appropriate terms, including the definitions of “minor,” “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline,” and “service discrediting conduct.” Neither the military judge nor the appellant made any reference to virtual images or depictions of child pornography that “appear to be” ofminors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
The appellant also explained that he felt his conduct was service discrediting in that “If people found out that a military member possessed child pornography, that would make the Air Force and the military look bad.” A short time later the military judgeparaphrased the appellant’s statement regarding why his actions were service discrediting, and the appellant agreed that the military judge’s understanding of his earlier statement was correct.
We have no doubt the appellant clearly understood the elements of the crime to which he pled guilty, why his acts were prohibited, and why those acts were service discrediting. Having examined the photographs ourselves, we are convinced, as the appellant was at trial, that his actions violated Article 134, UCMJ.
Considering the entire record, and paying special attention to the providence inquiry and the stipulation of fact, we find no “‘substantial basis’ in law [or] fact for questioning the guilty plea