United States v. Sergeant ERIC P. LINSCOMB ( 2009 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    Before
    JOHNSON, COOK, and BAIME
    Appellate Military Judges
    UNITED STATES, Appellee
    v.
    Sergeant ERIC P. LINSCOMB
    United States Army, Appellant
    ARMY 20090568
    Headquarters, Joint Readiness Center and Fort Polk
    Charles S. Hayes, Military Judge
    Colonel James D. Key, Staff Judge Advocate (trial)
    Colonel Keith C. Well, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial)
    For Appellant:  Major Timothy W. Thomas, JA; Captain Jennifer A. Parker.
    For Appellee:  Lieutenant Colonel Francis C. Kiley.
    24 November 2009
    ---------------------------------
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION
    ---------------------------------
    Per Curiam:
    A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted
    appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of absence without leave and missing
    movement, in violation of Articles 86 and 87, Uniform Code of Military
    Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 
    10 U.S.C. §§ 886
     and 887. The military judge
    sentenced appellant to confinement for four days, reduction to the rank of
    E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge.  The convening authority approved the
    adjudged sentence.[1]  This case is before us for review under Article 66,
    UCMJ.
    With respect to the Article 86 violation, the Specification of Charge
    I alleged appellant “did remain so absent until he was apprehended on or
    about 23 February 2009.”  According to appellant’s providency inquiry,
    however, civilian law enforcement in Elton, Louisiana apprehended and
    confined him on 20 February 2009 pursuant to an arrest warrant.  The record
    is not entirely clear concerning the legal basis for the warrant or the
    circumstances that led civilian authorities to its execution.  In this
    case, however, appellant indicated the warrant was issued at the request of
    military authorities.[2]  Appellant also stated during providency he
    remained confined by civilian authorities until 23 February 2009, at which
    time appellant’s Fort Polk-based unit picked appellant up and returned him
    to post.[3]  These assertions during the guilty plea proceedings regarding
    the timeline for his apprehension and confinement were uncontroverted.
    Article 86, UCMJ, states, “[w]hen an absentee is taken into custody by
    civilian authorities at the request of military authorities, the absence is
    terminated.”  Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2008 ed.)
    [hereinafter MCM], Part IV, para. 10.c.(10)(d).  See also United States v.
    Lanphear, 
    23 U.S.C.M.A. 338
    , 340, 
    49 C.M.R. 742
    , 744 (1975) (same).
    Furthermore, “[d]elivery of a known absentee by anyone to military
    authority terminates an unauthorized absence.”  MCM, Part IV, para.
    10.c.(10)(c).
    In this light, we amend the finding of guilty in the Specification of
    Charge I to reflect the earlier termination date of 20 February 2009 and
    affirm the finding of guilty to Charge I and its Specification as amended.
    The finding of guilty to Charge II and its Specification is affirmed.
    We have considered those matters personally raised by appellant
    pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 
    12 M.J. 431
     (C.M.A. 1982), and find
    them to be without merit.  Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the
    modified findings and the entire record, and applying the principles of
    United States v. Sales, 
    22 M.J. 305
     (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v.
    Moffeit, 
    63 M.J. 40
    , 43 (C.A.A.F. 2006), to include those factors
    identified in Judge Baker's concurring opinion in Moffeit, the sentence is
    affirmed.
    FOR THE COURT:
    MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
    Clerk of Court
    -----------------------
    [1] Appellant received four days of pretrial confinement credit from the
    military judge, though neither the convening authority’s action nor the
    promulgation order reflect this credit.  Appellant, however, acknowledges
    in his brief that he suffered no prejudice because he did not serve any
    confinement after his court-martial.
    [2] Appellant testified on the record that the “Allen Parish Sherriff
    Department” appeared at his mother’s home and stated, “they had a warrant
    for my arrest from the United States Army.”
    [3] 20 February 2009 through 23 February 2009 is the four-day period for
    which appellant was granted confinement credit.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ARMY 20090568

Filed Date: 11/24/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021