## Facts

- Williamson, an enlisted Navy sailor, argued with Petty Officer First Class C., his superior petty officer, in the ship’s engine room.
- After the argument, C. left the engine room.
- Williamson had one knife in his pocket, obtained a second knife from a shipmate, put it in his pocket, and left the engine room about three minutes after C. departed to look for C.
- Williamson stated his purpose was to hurt C.
- Williamson went up a ladder and determined C. was not in the passageway.
- The plea inquiry did not establish that Williamson removed either knife from his pockets, located C., confronted C., or moved directly toward C.’s person after leaving the engine room.
- At a special court-martial, Williamson pleaded guilty (by exceptions and substitutions) to an attempt-type assault upon a superior petty officer (Article 91, UCMJ) and pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon (Article 134, UCMJ).

## Issues

1. Whether the guilty-plea record provided an adequate factual basis to support an attempt-type assault under Article 91, requiring an overt act amounting to more than mere preparation.
2. Whether accepting the guilty plea was error where the record showed intent and preparatory steps but no direct movement toward committing a battery.

## Decision

- The Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals held there was a substantial basis to question the providence of the guilty plea to attempt-type assault.
- The court set aside the findings of guilty to the assault charge and its specification (Charge II).
- The finding of guilty for carrying a concealed weapon was not disturbed.
- The court adjusted the case disposition in light of setting aside the assault finding.

## Legal Principles

- A military judge may accept a guilty plea only after eliciting an adequate factual basis for each element of the offense; legal conclusions are insufficient without supporting facts.
- On appellate review, a guilty plea will be rejected if the record provides a substantial basis in law or fact to question the plea’s providence.
- An attempt-type assault requires an overt act that goes beyond mere preparation and constitutes a direct movement toward committing the intended battery; intent plus arming and searching may remain preparatory absent conduct placing the accused in a position to inflict harm.

## Conclusion

The court set aside Williamson’s guilty plea to an attempt-type assault because the plea inquiry established only intent and preparatory conduct—arming himself and searching for the victim—without facts showing an overt act beyond mere preparation or a direct movement toward inflicting bodily harm.


United States v. Williamson, 42 M.J. 613 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1995)