United States v. Elmblad ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •               U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
    C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
    ________________________
    No. ACM S32452
    ________________________
    UNITED STATES
    Appellee
    v.
    Daniel S. ELMBLAD
    Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
    Decided 7 September 2017
    ________________________
    Military Judge: Mark F. Rosenow.
    Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days, for-
    feiture of $1,066.00 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E-1.
    Sentence adjudged 18 January 2017 by SpCM convened at Cannon Air
    Force Base, New Mexico.
    For Appellant: Major Rebecca J. Otey, USAF.
    Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and MINK, Appellate Military Judges.
    ________________________
    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
    ________________________
    PER CURIAM:
    The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er-
    ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
    United States v. Elmblad, No. ACM S32452
    59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).
    Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. *
    FOR THE COURT
    KURT J. BRUBAKER
    Clerk of the Court
    * Although Appellant raises no specific assignments of error, we note the staff judge
    advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) erroneously advised the convening authority that
    the maximum sentence that could be imposed by this special court-martial included,
    inter alia, a fine in addition to forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 12 months.
    See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 201(f)(2)(B)(i); R.C.M. 1003(b)(3); United States
    v. Books, No. ACM S32369, 2017 CCA LEXIS 226, at *7 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 
    31 A.K. Marsh. 2017
    ) (unpub. op.). However, under the facts of this case we find no colorable showing
    of possible prejudice and, therefore, we affirm. See United States v. Scalo, 
    60 M.J. 435
    ,
    436–37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citations omitted).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ACM S32452

Filed Date: 9/7/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/12/2017