Patrick A. Monette
Chief Warrant Officer U.S. Army
Kidnapping Sexual Assualt Of Minors Pornography
Name: Patrict Arsene Monette
Case: United States v. Monette CCA 20020088 (No. 07-5623. October 1, 2007 Monette VS U.S.)
Date Of Appeal: March 16, 2005
Plea: Guilty
Charges: Kidnappying, producing child pornography, sexual assault of two children under 12-years-old
Military Branch: U.S. Army
Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? YES (now residing in Hawaii, has pilot license)
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
16 March 2005
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant consistent with his pleas, of sixteen specifications, all in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military of Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 [hereinafter UCMJ]. Specifically, the military judge found him guilty of indecent acts with a child (four specifications); indecent liberties with a child (two specifications); kidnapping (two specifications); knowing possession of child pornography transported in interstate commerce by any means including by computer or that was produced using materials shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce (four specifications); knowingly inducing a female under the age of twelve years into producing child pornography (two specifications); knowingly mailing, shipping or transporting child pornography in interstate or foreign commerce; and knowingly receiving child pornography transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Appellant was sentenced to dismissal from the service, confinement for ten years, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for dismissal and confinement for ten years. The convening authority ordered 145 days of confinement credit. The case is before the court for review under Article 66, UCMJ.
Appellant told the military judge that he inveigled the children stating, “I asked if they wanted to go to the store with me, and we proceeded to go to the store. But I had intended on as well as taking them to the store, to perhaps have them expose themselves, and further, perhaps getting visual depictions through the camera with them.” After taking them to the post-exchange, appellant decided to take the children to Wal-Mart. Approximately half way between Fort Rucker and Wal-Mart, appellant pulled off on a side road, about 300 yards, into a field with some high brush around it. The children objected to stopping and asked to go home or to Wal-Mart. Appellant then took nude pictures of the children in various sexual positions, exposed his penis and touched their vaginal and buttocks areas. Appellant agreed that the children’s parents did not consent to the detour.
Appellant said he had no questions and appellant admitted that his conduct as to all offenses was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Appellant admitted possession on compact discs, ZIP disks, and computer hard drives of a total of “approximately 19,000 photographic and video image files of child pornography, including children of different ages engaged in sexually explicit conduct with adult males and females.” Appellant collected these images over a period of approximately five years. Appellant carried some of the images from North Carolina to Alabama when he was transferred from Fort Bragg to Fort Rucker.
Appellant is a commissioned officer whose life was apparently dominated by his fixation on child pornography. This preoccupation eventually led to his kidnapping a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old child. Appellant exposed his penis to both children, and touched their vaginas and buttocks. Appellant also photographed the children’s pubic areas. “Under these circumstances, the distinction between ‘actual’ child pornography and ‘virtual’ child pornography [with respect to the images appellant did not personally generate by photographing the children he kidnapped] does not alter the character of [appellant’s] conduct as service discrediting or prejudicial to good order and discipline.” Id. at 20.
The court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of Specification 8 of Additional Charge II as finds that appellant did, at or near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, or at some unknown location outside the State of Alabama, between on or about 15 December 1996 and on or about 15 August 2001, knowingly and unlawfully mail, ship, or transport child pornography in interstate commerce by some means, including computer, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
The court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of Specification 9 of Additional Charge II as finds that appellant did, at or near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, or at some unknown location outside the State of Alabama, between on or about 15 December 1996 and on or about 15 August 2001, knowingly and unlawfully receive child pornography, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
The court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of Specification 11 of Additional Charge II as finds that appellant did, at or near Enterprise, Alabama, on or about 6 September 2001, knowingly and unlawfully possess computer Compact Discs (CD-R or CD-RW format) containing several thousand photographic and movie images of child pornography, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
The court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of Specification 12 of Additional Charge II as finds that appellant did, at or near Enterprise, Alabama, on or about 6 September 2001, knowingly and unlawfully possess computer ZIP disks containing several hundred photographic and movie images of child pornography, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
The court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of Specification 13 of Additional Charge II as finds that appellant did, at or near Enterprise, Alabama, on or about 6 September 2001, knowingly and unlawfully possess computer hard drives containing several thousand photographic and movie images of child pornography, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
The remaining findings of guilty are affirmed. Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the errors noted, the entire record, and applying the principles of United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986), the court affirms the sentence.
April 14, 2006
Appellant, a Chief Warrant Officer 2, was living with his fiancée and her family, when he sexually molested his fiancée’s two nieces, ages nine and seven. During a family outing at a local lake, Appellant “knowingly place[d] his hands onto their ‘privates[,’] both inside their swimsuits and over their clothing.”3 The following day, Appellant persuaded the two nieces to accompany him to a store to purchase gifts for his fiancée and his infant son. Appellant drove the girls to the Post Exchange (PX), where he purchased baby products, as well as film for a Polaroid camera.
After leaving the PX, Appellant drove to a secluded area behind a tall tree line. One of the girls asked Appellant, “Where are we going?” and “I want to go home.”4 Appellant had the girls remove their clothing while he took sexually explicit, Polaroid photographs of them, as well as molested them. Due to the fear of being detected by nearby traffic, Appellant had the girls get dressed and drove them to a second secluded location. At the second location, Appellant “took nude pictures of the children in various sexual positions, exposed his penis and touched their vaginal and buttocks areas.”5 After they got dressed, Appellant promised the girls each $15.00 and a gift from Wal-Mart if they would not tell anyone what happened. Appellant then took the girls to Wal-Mart to purchase the gifts.
After her daughters told her what happened, the victims’ mother notified law enforcement, and a search warrant was executed at Appellant’s residence. The authorities seized the Polaroid images, as well as approximately 19,000 images of child pornography from Appellant’s computer. Appellant was charged and convicted, consistent with his pleas, of sixteen specifications6 of various violations of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934.
