Granted providence inquiry issue

CAAF didn't post a daily journal update today, so there's still no official word on the naval case with the grant from yesterday. But a well-placed naval source suggests that the case was United States v. Inabinette, No. 07—0787/MC. Can anyone confirm or deny that scuttlebutt? Here's the issue presented in Inabinette: "WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT REVIEWED FOR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, RATHER THAN DE NOVO, THE MILITARY JUDGE’S LEGAL CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT’S PLEAS WERE PROVIDENT."

The opinion below, authored by the learned Judge White, is another one of those unpublished opinions that seems more worthy of publication than a lot of what shows up in the Military Justice Reporter. United States v. Inabinette, No. NMCCA 200602228 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. June 12, 2007). Here's a link. The opinion concluded that "[b]ecause the military judge exercises discretion, the decision to accept a guilty plea is entitled to deference on appellate review, and it is appropriate to review that decision for abuse of discretion. The Prater substantial basis test establishes the degree of deference. Prater, 32 M.J. at 436; see Shaw, 2007 CAAF LEXIS 537, at 4; Logan, 47 C.M.R. at 3." Id., slip op. at 3-4.