United States v. Enciso ( 2022 )

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.
Before
DEERWESTER, HACKEL, and KIRKBY
Appellate Military Judges
_________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Victor ENCISO
Seaman (E-3), U.S Navy
Appellant
No. 202200136
_________________________
Decided: 15 September 2022
Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge:
Donald R. Ostrom
Sentence adjudged 16 March 2022 by a general court-martial convened
at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, consisting of a military judge sitting
alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confine-
ment for 15 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 1 and a bad-
conduct discharge.
1 The convening authority suspended the adjudged forfeiture of all pay and allow-
ances for a period of six months from the date of the action, at which time the sus-
pended forfeiture of all pay and allowances was remitted without further action. We
note that Appellant was beyond his EAOS at the time of the trial and therefore this
suspension had no effect. After review of the facts we find no prejudice to Appellant.
United States v. Enciso, NMCCA No. 202200136
Opinion of the Court
For Appellant:
Major Brian L. Farrell, USMC
_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under
NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
_________________________
PER CURIAM:
After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error 2, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law
and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial
rights occurred. 3
The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
MARK K. JAMISON
Clerk of Court
2 We note that the military judge failed to announce the assembly of the court-
martial. While this was error, we find it was not a jurisdictional defect. Appellant does
not allege prejudice and we find none. See United States v. Goodwin, 60 M.J. 849, 850
(N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2005) (“Our superior court has held that violations of Article 16,
UCMJ, are not jurisdictional, so long as there is ‘substantial compliance’ with its re-
quirements. Thus, such errors must be tested for prejudice.”) (Internal citation omit-
ted).
3 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
2