Peter N. Beyer - Chief U.S. Navy - Convicted Sex Offender

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Children > Peter N. Beyer

Name: Peter N. Beyer

Case: United States v. Beyer No. NMCCA 200201128

Date Of Appeal: May 4, 2001

Decided 8 February 2005

Plea: Guilty

Charges: Attempted Sodomy Of A Child

Military Branch: U.S. Navy

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO

In accordance with his pleas, the appellant was convicted by a military judge, sitting alone as a general court-martial, of attempted indecent acts with a child under the age of 16 years, attempted sodomy with a child under the age of 16 years, using a computer as a facility and means of interstate commerce to attempt to induce or persuade or entice an individual under the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution or “criminally chargeable” sexual activity, and, on divers occasions, possessing, distributing, and receiving child pornography.

The appellant’s crimes violated Articles 80 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880 and 934, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2252A. The military judge sentenced the appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 7 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence and, in accordance with the terms of a pretrial agreement, suspended confinement in excess of 3 years for 40 months from the date of trial.

We have examined the record of trial, the appellant's eight assignments of error,1 the Government's response, the appellant’s reply, and the excellent oral argument of appellate counsel on the issues of the lack of fixed terms of office for Department of the Navy trial and appellate military judges and denial of speedy trial, respectively. We conclude that the providence inquiry conducted by the military judge into Specifications 2, 3, and 4 of Charge II (possess, distribute, and receive child pornography, respectively, all on divers occasions) was defective, as implicitly asserted in the appellant’s second assignment of error and explicitly asserted in his third assignment of error.

We also conclude that an unreasonable multiplication of charges (UMC) occurred, but not as asserted in the appellant’s sixth assignment of error. We hold that, based on the specific facts of the appellant’s case, Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge I (attempted indecent acts and attempted sodomy, both with a child under the age of 16 years) represents UMC with Specification 1 of Charge II (using a computer as a facility and means of interstate commerce to attempt to induce or persuade or entice an individual under the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution or criminally chargeable sexual activity). We shall take corrective action in our decretal paragraph. See Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ

The findings of guilty of Charge I and Specifications 1 and 2 thereunder, and Specifications 2, 3, and 4 of Charge II, and the sentence, are set aside. We affirm the remaining finding of guilty to Specification 1 of Charge II. Charge I and Specifications 1 and 2 thereunder, are dismissed. A rehearing is authorized as to Specifications 2, 3, and 4 of Charge II and the sentence. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to an appropriate convening authority who may order a rehearing as to Specifications 2, 3, and 4 of Charge II and the sentence. If a rehearing as to Specifications 2, 3, and 4 of Charge II is impractical, the convening authority can dismiss Specifications 2, 3, and 4 of Charge II and order a rehearing on sentencing as to Specification 1 of Charge II. If a rehearing on sentencing is impractical, the convening authority must approve a sentence of no punishment. Upon completion of the new post-trial action, the record will then be returned to this court for further appellate review. Our action moots assignments of error V, VII, and VIII.