## Facts

- Lance Corporal Coffman, a U.S. Marine, was stationed in Iraq.
- Coffman and other Marines were told to clear out a room in preparation for another platoon’s arrival.
- They were instructed to throw away the boxes stored in the room.
- During the clean-out, Coffman found an open box containing special-operations equipment, including a force vest, duty belt, and canteen covers, with a total value exceeding $500.
- Coffman tried to find out who owned the gear but could not identify the owner.
- Coffman kept the gear and used it on patrols for about a month.
- When Coffman’s section leader later questioned him about the gear’s ownership, Coffman said he had purchased it.
- Coffman was tried at a special court-martial and pleaded guilty to making a false official statement (Article 107, UCMJ) and larceny (Article 121, UCMJ).
- During the providence inquiry, Coffman admitted he knew it was wrong to take the gear, intended to deprive the owner of it, and would have kept using it if he had not been confronted.
- Without explaining the legal meaning of abandonment or the role of mistake of fact, the military judge asked Coffman whether he believed the gear was abandoned; Coffman answered “no.”
- The case came to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals for review without assigned error, but the court specified an issue concerning whether the larceny guilty plea was provident.

## Issues

1. Whether Coffman’s guilty plea to larceny under Article 121, UCMJ, was provident when the plea inquiry suggested a possible mistake-of-fact/abandonment defense and the military judge did not explain or resolve it on the record.

## Decision

- The court held there was a substantial basis to question the providence of Coffman’s guilty plea to larceny.
- The court set aside the larceny finding.
- The court affirmed the conviction for making a false official statement.
- The court reassessed the sentence in light of the set-aside larceny conviction and affirmed a reduced sentence.

## Legal Principles

- A military judge may accept a guilty plea only if the record shows the plea is knowing and voluntary and provides an adequate factual basis for each element. (Article 45, UCMJ; R.C.M. 910; United States v. Care)
- On appellate review, a guilty plea will be set aside if the record shows a “substantial basis” in law or fact to question the plea.
- If an accused’s statements during a guilty-plea inquiry raise a matter inconsistent with guilt—such as facts suggesting a potential defense—the military judge must explain the relevant legal rules and question the accused further to resolve the inconsistency before accepting the plea.
- In an Article 121 larceny case, facts suggesting the accused may have believed the property was abandoned (or otherwise believed he had a right to take it) can raise a mistake-of-fact issue that must be addressed during the providence inquiry.
- A conclusory yes/no answer to a legal label (for example, whether property was “abandoned”), without explanation of the legal standard and without tying the standard to the accused’s own facts, may be insufficient when the surrounding circumstances reasonably raise a defense.

## Conclusion

In *United States v. Coffman*, the NMCCA concluded that Coffman’s guilty plea to larceny was improvident because the circumstances he described—finding valuable gear in a box in a room the Marines had been told to clear out and trash—raised a possible mistake-of-fact theory about abandonment, and the military judge did not explain that concept or meaningfully resolve the issue during the plea inquiry; the court therefore set aside the larceny conviction, affirmed the false official statement conviction, and reassessed the sentence.


United States v. Coffman, 62 M.J. 676 (2006)