-
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before CONN, HOFFMAN, and GIFFORD Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Sergeant EDWARD A. WATKINS, JR. United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20080197 Headquarters, 25th Infantry Division Donna M. Wright, Military Judge Lieutenant Colonel Martin L. Sims, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Colonel Mark Tellitocci, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Matthew M. Miller, JA; Major Grace M. Gallagher, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan F. Potter, JA (on brief). For Appellee: Colonel Norman F.J. Allen III, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Martha L. Foss, JA; Major Adam S. Kazin, JA; Captain Nicole L. Fish (on brief). 6 January 2011 --------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION --------------------------------- Per Curiam: An enlisted panel sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his plea, of two specifications or larceny and two specifications of assault consummated by battery, in violation of Articles 121 and 128 Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ],
10 U.S.C. §§ 921and 928. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence to a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for twenty months, and reduction to private E1. On review of the case under Article 66, UCMJ we carefully considered all issues and assignments of error raised by appellant. We find these assignments of error to be without merit. Assignment of error III which states, “Appellant was denied the counsel of his choice to represent him on post-trial matters,” merits discussion but no relief. Appellate defense counsel offers no support for the proposition that appellant wanted anyone other than his trial defense counsel to represent him in preparing his post-trial R.C.M 1105 submission. At trial, appellant advised the military judge he had discussed his post-trial and appellate rights with his trial defense counsel and understood those rights. Appellant further signed his post-trial and appellate rights form, Appellate Exhibit XVI, and in the form elected to have his trial defense counsel prepare his Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1105 matters. Trial defense counsel prepared a substantial clemency petition that included a letter from the appellant among its eleven enclosures. Rather than supply any evidence that appellant himself sought to have civilian counsel prepare his R.C.M. 1105 submission, appellate defense counsel offer an affidavit from appellant’s father that implies that he, the father, wanted some materials prepared by a civilian counsel to be submitted to the convening authority. There is no evidence in the record of trial or appellate materials to indicate appellant desired to be represented by this counsel. Similarly, there is nothing in the record to show appellant wanted any materials prepared by this counsel included in his R.C.M. 1105 matters. The right to counsel is personal in nature and is not to be asserted vicariously. United States v. Sabatino,
943 F.2d 94, 96 n. 1 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing Gannett Co. v. DePasquale,
443 U.S. 368, 380 (1979)). “The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is personal to the defendant and specific to the offense.” Texas v. Cobb,
532 U.S. 162, 172 n. 2 (2001). Assignment of error III is wholly without merit. On consideration of the entire record, including the assignments of error, the findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed. FOR THE COURT: MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. Clerk of Court
Document Info
Docket Number: ARMY 20080197
Filed Date: 1/6/2011
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021