10 U.S.C. § 845

Art. 45. Pleas of the accused

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Irregular and Similar Pleas.—If an accused after arraignment makes an irregular pleading, or after a plea of guilty sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, or if it appears that he has entered the plea of guilty improvidently or through lack of understanding of its meaning and effect, or if he fails or refuses to plead, a plea of not guilty shall be entered in the record, and the court shall proceed as though he had pleaded not guilty.(b)Pleas of Guilty.—A plea of guilty by the accused may not be received to any charge or specification alleging an offense for which the death penalty is mandatory. With respect to any other charge or specification to which a plea of guilty has been made by the accused and accepted by the military judge, a finding of guilty of the charge or specification may be entered immediately without vote. This finding shall constitute the finding of the court unless the plea of guilty is withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence, in which event the proceedings shall continue as though the accused had pleaded not guilty.(c)Harmless Error.—A variance from the requirements of this article is harmless error if the variance does not materially prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 52; Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(19), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1339; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVII, § 5227, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2911.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

845(a)

845(b)

50:620(a).

50:620(b).

May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 45), 64 Stat. 122.

In subsection (b), the word “may” is substituted for the word “shall”.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2016—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5227(c)(1), inserted heading.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5227(c)(2), inserted heading.

Pub. L. 114–328, § 5227(a), substituted “is mandatory” for “may be adjudged” and struck out “or by a court-martial without a military judge” after “by the military judge” and “, if permitted by regulations of the Secretary concerned,” after “charge or specification may”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5227(b), added subsec. (c).

1968—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(19)(A), substituted “after arraignment” for “arraigned before a court-martial”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(19)(B), inserted provisions covering the making and accepting of a guilty plea to charges or specifications other than charges and specifications alleging an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–632 effective first day of tenth month following October 1968, see section 4 of Pub. L. 90–632, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 460 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Redlinski, 58 M.J. 117 (C.A.A.F. 2003).
United States v. Redlinski, 58 M.J. 117 (C.A.A.F. 2003). · cites it 4× “45(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (a) (2002); R.C.M. 910(c)(1).”
United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2015). · cites it 3× “” Article 45(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (b) (2000). 43 United States v.”
United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006). · cites it 2× “Both the Congress in enacting Article 45, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (2000), and the President in promulgating R.”
United States v. Goodman, 70 M.J. 396 (C.A.A.F. 2011). · cites it 4× “at 498 (quoting Article 45(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (a)), quoted in United States v.”
United States v. Barton, 60 M.J. 62 (C.A.A.F. 2004). · cites it 4× “When considering the adequacy of the plea, this Court considers the entire record to determine whether the dictates of Article 45, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (2000), Rule for Courts- Martial 910, and Care and its progeny have been met.”
United States v. Shaw, 64 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2007). · cites it 3× “1996) (quoting Article 45(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (a) (2000)); Rule 4 United States v.”
United States v. Jordan, 57 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 2× “Discussion Under Article 45, UCMJ, 10 USC § 845 , if an accused makes an irregular pleading, sets up matter inconsistent with a guilty plea, or appears to enter a plea improvidently or through lack of understanding of its meaning or effect, the plea shall not be accepted by the…”
United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2000). · cites it 2× “Rather, it concluded that the accused’s statement during the providence inquiry that he believed that she was more than 16 was inconsistent with the plea under Article 45, UCMJ, 10 USC § 845 . In Hayes , the Court of Military Review noted that it could consider a report of a…”
Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 2× “See Article 45, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (2000); Rule for Courts-Martial (R.”
United States v. McCrimmon, 60 M.J. 145 (C.A.A.F. 2004). · cites it 4× “1987), and may not even do that for “an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged,” Article 45(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (2000). Both a specific statute and case law establish the process to evaluate a voluntary and reliable guilty plea.”
United States v. Pamela Miller, 698 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “As another example of such a system in operation, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (a), which discusses plea agreements in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, states that “if it appears that [the defendant] has entered the plea of guilty improvidently or through lack of understanding of its…”
United States v. Green, 1 M.J. 453 (1976). · cites it 2× “See Article 45(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 845 (a). Finally we believe trial judges must share the responsibility, which until now has been borne by the appellate tribunals, to police terms of pretrial agreements to insure compliance with statutory and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.