United States v. Mac ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •           U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS
    C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS
    _________________________
    No. 201500413
    _________________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Appellee
    v.
    WILLIAM G. MAC
    Operations Specialist Third Class (E-4), U.S. Navy
    Appellant
    _________________________
    Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
    Military Judge: Captain Paul C. LeBlanc, JAGC, USN.
    Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, USS PINCKNEY
    (DDG 91).
    Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Commander
    Christopher P. Toscano, JAGC, USN.
    For Appellant: Captain Daniel R. Douglas, USMC.
    For Appellee: Lieutenant Commander Catheryne E. Pully, JAGC,
    USN; Lieutenant Jetti L. Gibson, JAGC, USN.
    _________________________
    Decided 16 February 2017
    _________________________
    Before M ARKS , G LASER -A LLEN , and J ONES , Appellate Military
    Judges
    _________________________
    This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be
    cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Practice and
    Procedure 18.2.
    _________________________
    PER CURIAM:
    A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted the appellant,
    pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of wrongful use of marijuana and
    one specification of assault consummated by a battery in violation of Articles
    112a and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 912a and 928.
    United States v. Mac, No. 201500413
    The military judge sentenced the appellant to eight months’ confinement,
    forfeiture of $1,144.00 pay per month for eight months, reduction to pay
    grade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority approved
    the adjudged sentence.
    The appellant avers, and the government concedes, that the adjudged and
    approved forfeitures of pay exceed the maximum allowed by law at this
    special court-martial. The military judge calculated the adjudged forfeiture
    amount by mistakenly including the $100 sea pay the appellant received at
    the time of trial. “The maximum authorized amount of a partial forfeiture
    shall be determined by using the basic pay . . . and, if no confinement is
    adjudged, any sea or hardship duty pay.” RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL
    1003(b)(2), MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2012 ed.)
    (emphasis added). As the adjudged sentence here included confinement, the
    military judge should not have included sea pay when calculating maximum
    forfeitures—two-thirds of basic pay, in whole dollars, at the appellant’s
    reduced rank, or $1,031.00 pay per month.
    After taking corrective action, we conclude that the findings and sentence
    are correct in law and fact, and that no error materially prejudicial to the
    substantial rights of the appellant remains. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.
    The findings and only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement
    for eight months, reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $1,031.00 pay per
    month for eight months, and a bad-conduct discharge are affirmed.
    For the Court
    R.H. TROIDL
    Clerk of Court
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 201500413

Filed Date: 2/16/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/21/2017