## Facts

- Private David E. Care, a U.S. Marine, left his duty station without authority and remained absent for about 15 months before being apprehended roughly 3,000 miles from his command.
- Care had three prior instances of unauthorized absence.
- He was referred to a special court-martial and charged with desertion under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
- At trial, Care pleaded guilty to desertion.
- The military judge accepted the plea without (1) explaining on the record the elements of desertion or (2) eliciting from Care a personal factual narrative establishing each element, including any required intent.
- The court-martial convicted Care based on the plea and adjudged sentence; the board of review approved the findings and sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 45(a), UCMJ, permits acceptance and affirmance of a guilty plea when the record does not show that the judge explained the elements of the offense to the accused.
2. Whether Article 45(a), UCMJ, requires the judge to question the accused on the record to establish, in the accused’s own words, a factual basis demonstrating that the accused’s acts and intent satisfy each element of the charged offense.
3. What the court-martial must do when the plea inquiry reveals a lack of understanding or statements inconsistent with guilt.

## Decision

- The United States Court of Military Appeals set aside the findings and sentence.
- The court held the guilty plea was improvident under Article 45(a), UCMJ, because the record did not show an adequate on-the-record inquiry into the elements and factual basis.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the required guilty-plea inquiry.

## Legal Principles

- A court-martial may not accept a guilty plea unless the record reflects that the elements of each offense have been explained to the accused.
- The military judge must personally question the accused to develop a factual basis showing that the accused’s conduct (and, where relevant, intent) satisfies each element; conclusory admissions and counsel representations are insufficient.
- The judge must ensure the accused understands the meaning and effect of the guilty plea and the fundamental trial rights waived by pleading guilty, including the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial, and the right to confront witnesses.
- If the accused’s statements during the inquiry are inconsistent with guilt or fail to establish an element, Article 45(a) requires entry of a not-guilty plea and trial on the merits.
- The decision established the required “Care” (providence) inquiry; later military practice codified and elaborated these requirements in Rule for Courts-Martial 910.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Care’s guilty plea because the military judge failed to explain the elements and obtain an on-the-record factual basis from Care establishing each element of desertion, and it required a searching, personal plea inquiry to ensure a knowing, voluntary, and factually supported guilty plea under Article 45(a), UCMJ.


United States v. Care, 40 C.M.R. 247 (C.M.A. 1969)