Conor H. McLeod Operations Specialist Third Class (E-4), U.S. Coast Guard Convicted Sex Offender Sodomy With A Child

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Children > Conor H. McLeod

Name: Conor H. McLeod

Case: United States v.McLeod CGCMG 0214 Docket No. 1262

Date Of Appeal: August 29, 2008

Plea: Guilty

Charges: Sodomy With A Child

Military Branch: U.S. Coast Guard

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO

Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of sodomy with a child under the age of sixteen, in violation of Article 125, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of committing indecent acts with another, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for three months, total forfeitures, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence.

Appellant was convicted under Article 134, UCMJ, of committing an indecent act with SR, a 15-year-old Coast Guard dependent. Appellant initially was charged with indecent acts with a child, but pleaded guilty to the offense of indecent acts with another by excepting out the reference to SR’s age. (R. at 11.)r way.

Appellant was a student at OS “A” School at Training Center Petaluma. SR was the stepson of a Training Center instructor. (Prosecution Ex. 1 at 2.) After being introduced through a mutual friend, Appellant and SR agreed to meet each other at the base chapel on 9 July 2003 at night. (Prosecution Ex. 1 at 2; R. at 22-23.) During the providence inquiry, Appellant explained that he agreed to the location because he knew it would be open, and because he “was under the impression that there would be no one else there as well.” (R. at 60.) After meeting, Appellant and SR engaged in extended conversation, and remained in the chapel through the early morning hours of 10 July. The two then engaged in sodomy, which became the subject of a second offense under Article 125, UCMJ. Appellant and SR left the chapel between 0330 and 0400.

Even assuming that the charged act was not open and notorious, we are satisfied that the record adequately establishes that Appellant engaged in conduct that was grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, and therefore was indecent as that term is defined under Article 134, UCMJ. Here, Appellant admitted that he was attracted to and aroused by SR, the stepson of a Coast Guard instructor, while the two sat and talked together at night at the base chapel. Appellant admitted that after several hours of talking, he and SR engaged in kissing and fondling.

Appellant’s acts were preparatory to his engaging in the ultimate criminal sexual act involving homosexual sodomy with a child under the age of sixteen. Cf. United States v. Stocks, 35 M.J. 366, 367 (C.M.A. 1992) (holding that private, heterosexual foreplay between consenting adults is not unlawful, provided the ultimate act of sexual intercourse is not criminal).

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Article 66, UCMJ. Upon such review,

the findings and sentence are determined to be correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the

entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as

approved below, are affirmed.