United States v. Munn (ARMY 20250252)

United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals — Summary Disposition (25 Feb 2026)

Procedural Posture

PFC Elijah T. Munn pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to attempted patronage of a prostitute under Article 80, UCMJ. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the government moved to dismiss:

Attempted sexual assault of a child (Article 80/120b), and
Patronizing a prostitute (Article 134),

with dismissal “without prejudice to ripen into prejudice” upon completion of appellate review. The military judge granted the motion and entered findings consistent with the agreement.

Appellant assigned no error. This means neither the military judge, the trial lawyers, nor the appellate lawyers caught the issue. The Army Court did.

Core Jurisdictional Issue

The special court-martial lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the specification alleging attempted sexual assault of a child.

Under Article 18(c), UCMJ and R.C.M. 201(2)(D), only general courts-martial may exercise jurisdiction over:

Articles 120(a)-(b), 120b(a)-(b), and
Attempts thereof under Article 80.

The specification at issue alleged conduct encompassing all elements of Article 120b(b), UCMJ.

Accordingly, referral to a special court-martial was legally impermissible.

MUNN-20250252-SUMMARY DISPOSITI…

Because jurisdiction cannot be waived, the military judge’s conditional dismissal of that specification was ultra vires and void.

Disposition

The Army Court:

Dismissed the attempted sexual assault of a child specification for lack of jurisdiction;
Affirmed the remaining guilty finding and sentence.

Importantly, the court found the guilty plea to attempted patronage provident because the plea agreement independently barred further prosecution of the sexual assault specification, notwithstanding the defective conditional dismissal.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces several structural principles in military justice:

Subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable.
Improper referral cannot be cured by plea agreement mechanisms.
Appellate courts will correct jurisdictional defects even where no error is assigned.
Plea agreements cannot bootstrap jurisdiction where Congress has withdrawn it.

The decision tracks precedent such as Henderson and reflects the post-2013 NDAA jurisdictional limitations on sexual assault offenses.

Litigation Parallels: Cave & Freeburg

The issues in Munn fall squarely within the type of appellate terrain that experienced military appellate litigators routinely navigate—particularly:

1. Jurisdictional Defects at Referral

Cave and Freeburg have litigated cases involving:

Improper referral to special courts-martial,
Structural defects affecting subject matter jurisdiction,
Non-waivable jurisdictional limitations under Article 18 and R.C.M. 201.

They understand that jurisdictional error is not merely procedural—it is structural and voids the proceeding as to the affected offense.

2. Plea Agreement Litigation Post–Military Justice Act

Munn illustrates the complexity of modern plea agreements:

Conditional dismissals,
Ripening clauses,
Appellate-contingent terms,
Government non-referral provisions.

Cave and Freeburg have litigated the enforceability and interpretation of plea agreement terms, particularly:

Whether a plea remains provident when a material term fails,
Government withdrawal provisions,
Ultra vires judicial actions affecting contractual protections.

The appellate question here—whether the plea remains provident despite jurisdictional invalidity of a dismissal—is precisely the kind of nuanced appellate issue requiring deep familiarity with Article 45, R.C.M. 910, and appellate standards of review.

3. Structural Error vs. Harmless Error

This case required distinguishing:

Void action for want of jurisdiction,
Valid findings on unaffected specifications,
Whether the jurisdictional defect tainted the plea.

That analytical separation—surgical rather than sweeping—is characteristic of sophisticated appellate advocacy.

4. Protecting the Client from Collateral Exposure

A central concern in Munn was whether the accused remained protected from reprosecution despite the void dismissal. The court relied on the plea agreement’s non-referral language to conclude he was protected.

Experienced appellate counsel understand that:

Jurisdictional dismissal alone may not bar reprosecution,
Contractual plea protections may provide independent safeguards,
The appellate record must clearly establish those protections.

That layered protection analysis is precisely where seasoned appellate counsel add value.

Why Appellate Experience Matters in Cases Like This

Cases like Munn are not about factual disputes. They turn on:

Statutory interpretation,
Structural jurisdiction,
Plea agreement enforceability,
De novo review standards,
Appellate preservation doctrine.

Effective appellate litigation in this domain requires:

Mastery of Articles 18, 80, 120b,
R.C.M. 201 and 907 jurisprudence,
CAAF precedent on jurisdiction,
Familiarity with post-2013 NDAA reforms.

Cave and Freeburg’s background in military appellate litigation equips them to:

Identify jurisdictional defects even when unassigned,
Frame structural error arguments precisely,
Protect clients from unintended collateral consequences,
Preserve issues for CAAF review,
Craft arguments that distinguish void actions from harmless procedural missteps.

Bottom Line

United States v. Munn demonstrates how technical jurisdictional errors can alter the legal landscape of a case even when the accused pleads guilty and assigns no error.

Appellate litigation in this area is highly specialized. It requires deep knowledge of statutory jurisdiction, modern plea agreements, and military appellate standards. Counsel experienced in litigating jurisdictional defects and plea agreement enforcement—such as Cave and Freeburg—are positioned to recognize and exploit these issues to secure the most favorable lawful outcome available.