## Facts

- PFC Lynndie R. England served as a personnel administrative clerk at the Baghdad Central Confinement Facility (Abu Ghraib), Iraq, and faced multiple UCMJ charges arising from detainee-abuse misconduct.
- England sought to plead guilty to most charges under an agreement that would reduce her sentencing exposure.
- One pleaded specification alleged conspiracy to commit maltreatment with Corporal Charles Graner, with whom England had an intimate relationship.
- The conspiracy allegation focused on an incident in which Graner placed a strap around the neck of a nude detainee, used it as a “leash” to control the detainee, then handed the strap to England and photographed her holding it.
- Before accepting the plea, the military judge conducted a providence inquiry to confirm England understood why her conduct was unlawful and that the elements of each offense were met.
- During the inquiry, England admitted there was no lawful purpose for the conduct and photographs and that the intent was to degrade and humiliate the detainee; she also described the photographs as taken for Graner’s personal use and amusement.
- Based on England’s admissions, the military judge accepted the guilty plea and entered findings consistent with the plea, including as to the conspiracy specification.
- During presentencing, the defense called Graner as a witness. Graner testified the incident was a planned, lawful use of force to extract a noncompliant detainee and that the photographs were taken to document the extraction in line with military-police rules.
- The military judge concluded Graner’s testimony materially conflicted with England’s plea admissions on the conspiracy’s unlawful agreement/shared intent and rejected (withdrew acceptance of) the guilty plea as to the conspiracy specification.
- The conspiracy specification then proceeded as a contested matter, and England was acquitted of that specification; she was convicted of other offenses and sentenced.
- England appealed, challenging the military judge’s refusal to leave the previously accepted guilty plea in place for the conspiracy specification.

## Issues

1. Whether the military judge abused discretion by rejecting an accepted guilty plea to conspiracy after presentencing testimony introduced a material inconsistency with the factual basis for the plea.
2. Whether a military judge’s duty to evaluate the providence of a guilty plea continues beyond the initial providence inquiry and may include evidence presented during sentencing.
3. Whether conflicting evidence about the purpose of the detainee “leash” incident created a substantial basis in law or fact to question the existence of a shared unlawful agreement required for UCMJ conspiracy.

## Decision

- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the military judge’s decision to reject England’s guilty plea to the conspiracy-to-maltreat specification.
- The court held the judge did not abuse discretion because Graner’s presentencing testimony created an unresolved, material conflict bearing directly on a required conspiracy element: a common unlawful agreement/intent.
- The court treated the sentencing record as relevant to whether the plea remained provident, because the judge’s obligation to accept only provident pleas is ongoing.
- England’s acquittal on the conspiracy specification stood, and her remaining convictions and sentence were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A military judge may accept a guilty plea only if the record provides an adequate factual basis for each element and the accused’s admissions establish guilt.
- If the record later raises a substantial basis in law or fact to question the providence of a guilty plea, the judge must resolve the inconsistency on the record or reject the plea.
- The judge’s responsibility to confirm a plea is provident does not end when the plea is initially accepted; it continues through the proceedings, including sentencing.
- Conspiracy under the UCMJ requires proof of an agreement to commit an offense and an overt act in furtherance, including a shared unlawful purpose (a meeting of the minds to pursue criminal conduct).

## Conclusion

United States v. England holds that a military judge may set aside a previously accepted guilty plea to conspiracy when later testimony, even during sentencing, creates a material and unresolved conflict with the accused’s admissions on the existence of a shared unlawful agreement and intent, such that the plea can no longer be treated as provident on the full record.


United States v. England, 2009 WL 6842645 (2005)