United States v. Stanley ( 2020 )

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.
Before
MONAHAN, STEPHENS, and DEERWESTER
Appellate Military Judges
_________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Caleb R. STANLEY
Seaman (E-3), U.S. Navy
Appellant
No. 202000116
Decided: 27 October 2020
Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge:
W. Arthur Record
Sentence adjudged 12 February 2020 by a special court-martial con-
vened at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, consisting of a mili-
tary judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction
to E-1, confinement for 7 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.
For Appellant:
Captain W. Scott Stoebner, JAGC, USNR
For Appellee:
Brian K. Keller, Esq.
_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under
NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
United States v. Stanley, NMCCA No. 202000116
Opinion of the Court
_________________________
PER CURIAM:
After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
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 [UCMJ] arts. 59, 66, 10
U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED 1.
FOR THE COURT:
RODGER A. DREW, JR.
Clerk of Court
1 In affirming the findings and sentence, we note that the only clemency request-
ed by trial defense counsel on behalf of Appellant was disapproval or suspension of
his remaining confinement. Because the adjudged sentence included a bad-conduct
discharge, this requested relief was not possible by operation of law and, thus,
outside the convening authority’s authority. See UCMJ art. 60(c). In a case where
trial defense counsel could have requested clemency that was within the authority of
the convening authority, but instead requested clemency that was not possible by
operation of law, we have remanded for new post-trial processing with conflict-free
counsel. See United States v. Marquardt, No. 201600265, 2017 CCA Lexis 95 (N-M.
Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 14, 2017) (unpublished op.). However, because the only possible
clemency available for Appellant was suspension or disapproval of the adjudged
reduction from E-3 to E-1, and due to the seriousness and breadth of the offenses in
this case, we find there was no “reasonable probability of succeeding” that clemency
would have been granted on that basis. United States v. Jameson, 65 M.J. 160, 164
(C.A.A.F. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, under the unique
circumstances of this case, we discern no prejudice and no need to remand for new
post-trial processing.
2