1. bestmilitarydefenseucmjdefenselawyer47United States v. Teffeau , 58 M.J. 62 (2003). Modification of a lawful general ordercharge from “wrongfully providing alcohol to [JK]” to “wrongfully [ ] engaging in and seeking [ ] a nonprofessional, personal relationship with [JK], a person enrolled in the Delayed-Entry Program” held to be a material variance; finding of guilty to the Charge and Specification set aside. Variance cannot change the nature of the offense or increase the seriousness of the offense or its maximum punishment.
  2. United States v. Pryor , 57 M.J. 821 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2003). MJ erred by notentering guilty findings by exceptions and substitutions when the evidence in the stipulation of fact and the accused’s providence inquiry narrowed the period of the accused’s criminality. By simply entering findings of guilty to the specifications as written, the appellant was prejudiced by a court-martial record that “indicates a pattern of criminal conduct occurring over a greater period of time than actually took place.” The court provided relief by modifying the findings and reassessing the sentence based on the modified findings.