United States v. Smith ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
    C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
    ________________________
    No. ACM 40309
    ________________________
    UNITED STATES
    Appellee
    v.
    DeAnthony M. SMITH
    Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
    Decided 22 December 2022
    ________________________
    Military Judge: Sterling C. Pendleton.
    Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 3 May 2022 by GCM convened at Royal
    Air Force Mildenhall, United Kingdom. Sentence entered by military
    judge on 25 May 2022: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days,
    forfeiture of $1,200.00 pay per month for 3 months, and reduction to
    E-1.
    For Appellant: None. 1
    Before KEY, ANNEXSTAD, and GRUEN, Appellate Military Judges.
    ________________________
    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
    ________________________
    PER CURIAM:
    1 On 3 May 2022 and again on 23 May 2022, Appellant declined, in writing, appellate
    defense counsel representation. See United States v. Xu, 
    70 M.J. 140
     (C.A.A.F. 2011)
    (mem.); see also Department of the Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of
    Military Justice, ¶ 24.3 (14 Apr. 2022).
    United States v. Smith, No. ACM 40309
    The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
    error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
    59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 
    10 U.S.C. §§ 859
    (a), 866(d)
    (Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.)). Accordingly, the find-
    ings and sentence are AFFIRMED.2
    FOR THE COURT
    ANTHONY F. ROCK, Maj, USAF
    Acting Clerk of the Court
    2 We note that the entry of judgment includes the full name of one of the victims in two
    places, despite using the initials of the other victim in all other instances. While such
    an error certainly undermines the main rationale for using initials in the first place—
    to protect the privacy of crime victims—Appellant did not allege this error or assert
    any prejudice. We do not find any prejudice and conclude that no relief is warranted.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 40309

Filed Date: 12/22/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/29/2024