Mark R. N. Deal - U.S. NavyConvicted Sex OffenderPossessing Child Pornography

Home > Child Pornography > Mark R. N. Deal

Name: Mark R. N. Deal

Case: United States v. Deal NMCCA 200401054

Date Of Conviction: March 26, 2004

Plea: Guilty

Charges: Possessing Child Pornography & Attempted Redistribution

Military Branch: U.S. Navy

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO

Sentence adjudged 26 March 2004. Military Judge: C.D. Connor. Review pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, of Special Court-Martial convened by Commander, Submarine Group TWO, Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT.

The appellant lived in a furnished basement off base. A civilian member of the household, on her way to the basement laundry, observed what appeared to be a child pornography video playing on the appellant’s computer.

Local police were contacted and a search and seizure followed. The appellant’s computer had 38 files containing child pornography movies and 4 files containing still images. He received the images through a user shareware program that allowed access to and from personal computers and downloading files.

Affirmative action on the part of the appellant was required to download the pornography. The appellant kept the files on the shareware software with the intent that others would be able to access and download from his files.

A military judge, sitting as a special court-martial, convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of attempting to distribute child pornography, receiving child pornography, and possessing child pornography in violation of Articles 80 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880 and 934. The military judge sentenced the appellant to a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence.

The appellant admitted in his stipulation that receiving and possessing child pornography brings discredit to the U.S. Navy and would tend to lower the public’s view of the U.S. Navy. Prosecution Exhibit 1. Also, the appellant, during the plea inquiry, was asked to explain how his behavior was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting.1 The appellant admitted that his conduct was service discrediting as to both specifications under the Charge.

The Specification under the Additional Charge alleged a violation of Article 80, UCMJ, an attempted distribution of child pornography that had been transported in interstate or foreign commerce by computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A.

We have carefully considered the record of trial, submitted without the assignment of error. We note that the providence inquiry failed to adequately establish facts sufficient to support the specifications under both the Charge and the Additional Charge, but does support findings of guilty to the lesser included offenses under the Charge. Except as noted below, we conclude that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant was committed. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.