United States v. Calloway ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
    C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
    ________________________
    No. ACM S32509 (f rev)
    ________________________
    UNITED STATES
    Appellee
    v.
    Andrew S. CALLOWAY
    Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
    Upon Further Review
    Decided 3 August 2022
    ________________________
    Military Judge: John C. Degnan.
    Approved sentence: No punishment. Sentence adjudged 6 September
    2017 by SpCM convened at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
    For Appellant: Major Benjamin H. DeYoung, USAF; Major Eshawn R.
    Rawlley, USAF.
    For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Major Brian
    E. Flanagan, USAF; Major John P. Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne,
    Esquire.
    Before JOHNSON, KEY, and MEGINLEY, 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    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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:
    A special court-martial composed of a military judge alone convicted Appel-
    lant, in accordance with his pleas, of one specification of wrongful use of cocaine
    on divers occasions and one specification of wrongful use of 3,4-methylenediox-
    United States v. Calloway, No. ACM S32509 (f rev)
    ymethamphetamine in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Jus-
    tice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a.* The military judge sentenced Appellant to a
    bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 30 days, hard labor without confine-
    ment for 30 days, reduction to the grade of E-2, and a reprimand. The conven-
    ing authority approved the sentence with the exception of hard labor without
    confinement.
    Upon this court’s initial review, we excepted, set aside, and dismissed with
    prejudice certain language from Specification 1 of the Charge; substituted
    other language therefor; set aside the sentence; and authorized a rehearing on
    the sentence. United States v. Calloway, No. ACM S32509, 
    2019 CCA LEXIS 400
    , at *44 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 11 Oct. 2019) (unpub. op.).
    On remand, the convening authority issued an order dated 4 May 2020
    which acknowledged this court’s decree, and stated that a rehearing on the
    sentence was “found to be impracticable.” The order then announced that the
    “findings of guilty as promulgated” in the original promulgating order were
    “approved,” and that the convening authority “impose[d] a sentence of no pun-
    ishment.” The record was re-docketed with this court, and on 22 February
    2021, Appellant through counsel submitted this case for review on its merits
    without additional assignments of error. On 1 June 2021, this court issued an
    order to the Government to show good cause as to why the record should not
    be returned to the convening authority for correction of the action. After re-
    ceiving the Government’s response, on 10 August 2021, this court returned the
    record to The Judge Advocate General for remand to the convening authority
    because the convening authority’s 4 May 2020 action purporting to approve the
    original findings was “not only erroneous and ultra vires, but confusing and
    misleading.” United States v. Calloway, No. ACM S32509 (f rev), 
    2021 CCA LEXIS 407
    , at *5 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 10 Aug. 2021) (order).
    Following the additional remand, on 13 September 2021, the convening au-
    thority issued an order which again stated a rehearing on the sentence was
    found to be impracticable. The convening authority therefore “approve[d] a
    sentence of no punishment.” See Rule for Courts-Martial 1107(e)(2)(C)(iii).
    The record has again been re-docketed with this court, and after receiving
    eight enlargements of time, on 25 July 2022, Appellant has again submitted
    the case for review without additional assignments of error.
    The approved findings, as modified by this court’s prior opinion, and the
    approved sentence of no punishment are correct in law and fact, and no error
    materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a)
    * All references in this opinion to the UCMJ and Rules for Courts-Martial are to the
    Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.).
    2
    United States v. Calloway, No. ACM S32509 (f rev)
    and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 
    10 U.S.C. §§ 859
    (a), 866(c). Ac-
    cordingly, the approved findings, as modified, and sentence are AFFIRMED.
    FOR THE COURT
    CAROL K. JOYCE
    Clerk of the Court
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S32509 (f rev)

Filed Date: 8/3/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/29/2024