United States v. Murray ( 2020 )

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.
Before
MONAHAN, STEPHENS, and LAWRENCE
Appellate Military Judges
_________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Reggie W. MURRAY II
Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Aircraft Handling) Airman Appren-
tice (E-2), U.S. Navy
Appellant
No. 201800163
Decided: 14 December 2020
Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
upon further review following remand from the United States
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
Military Judge:
Ann K. Minami
Sentence adjudged 28 March 2018 by a special court-martial convened
at Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Washington, consisting of a military
judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by the convening authority: no
punishment. 1
1 Upon appeal, we set aside Appellant’s conviction on one Specification as well as
his original sentence of reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement for 10 months, and a
bad-conduct discharge, and remanded it for a rehearing or approval of a sentence of
no punishment. See United States v. Murray, No. 201800163, 2019 CCA LEXIS 483
(N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2019) (unpublished).
United States v. Murray, NMCCA No. 201800163
Opinion of the Court
For Appellant:
Lieutenant Commander Erin L. Alexander, JAGC, USN
For Appellee:
Brian K. Keller, Esq.
_________________________
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 but noting an administrative error, 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. Uniform Code of
Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
Appellant notes an administrative error in the court-martial order. It does
not make clear that Charge I and its Specification were withdrawn and
dismissed. Although we find no prejudice from this scrivener’s error,
Appellant is entitled to have court-martial records that correctly reflect the
content of his proceeding. United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N-M.
Ct. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, we order correction of records in this case
to accurately reflect Appellant’s conviction.
The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
RODGER A. DREW, JR.
Clerk of Court
2