United States v. Miears ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •               UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
    Before
    F.D. MITCHELL, J.R. MCFARLANE, K.J. BRUBAKER
    Appellate Military Judges
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    MARK A. MIEARS
    ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS (E-5), U.S. NAVY
    NMCCA 201400434
    GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL``
    Sentence Adjudged: 30 July 2014.
    Military Judge: Col Paul H. McConnell, USMC.
    Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic,
    Norfolk, VA.
    Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR S.J. Gawronski,
    JAGC, USN.
    For Appellant: CAPT Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.
    For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.
    29 January 2015
    ---------------------------------------------------
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    ---------------------------------------------------
    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 general court-martial
    convicted the appellant, in accordance with his pleas, of one
    specification each of wrongfully committing indecent conduct and
    knowingly possessing at least one image of child pornography in
    violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military
    Justice, 
    10 U.S.C. §§ 920
     and 934. The appellant was sentenced
    to confinement for 24 months, reduction to the lowest enlisted
    pay grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a
    1
    dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the
    sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge,
    ordered it executed.
    Although the appellant’s case was submitted to this court
    without assignment of error, we note that the convening
    authority, in taking action, failed to indicate disapproval of
    the adjudged forfeitures as required by the pretrial agreement.
    The convening authority separately suspended automatic
    forfeitures pursuant to the defense counsel’s request and waived
    them in his action. We will take appropriate corrective action
    in our decretal paragraph. Otherwise, after careful examination
    of the record of trial, we are satisfied that the findings and
    the sentence are correct in law and fact and that no further
    error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the
    appellant occurred. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.
    The findings and only that part of the sentence which
    extends to confinement for 24 months, reduction to the lowest
    enlisted pay grade, and a dishonorable discharge are affirmed.
    United States v. Cox, 
    46 C.M.R. 69
    , 72 (C.M.A. 1972).
    For the Court
    R.H. TROIDL
    Clerk of Court
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 201400434

Filed Date: 1/29/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/30/2015