United States v. Harrison

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 39067
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Coury W. HARRISON
Staff Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 20 October 2017
________________________
Military Judge: Donald R. Eller, Jr. (arraignment); Christopher S.
Leavey.
Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 5 years,
forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. Sentence ad-
judged 13 January 2016 by GCM convened at Royal Air Force Milden-
hall, United Kingdom.
For Appellant: Major Allen S. Abrams, USAF.
For Appellee: Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF; Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.
Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and MINK, Appellate Military Judges.
________________________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
________________________
PER CURIAM:
The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er-
ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
United States v. Harrison, No. ACM 39067
59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).
Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. *
FOR THE COURT
KATHLEEN M. POTTER
Acting Clerk of the Court
*We note that the convening authority’s memorandum dated 4 February 2016, denying
Appellant’s request for deferment and waiver of forfeitures and deferment of reduction
in rank, failed to articulate the reasons for the denial of Appellant’s request for defer-
ment of forfeitures and reduction in rank as required by Rule for Courts-Martial
1101(c)(3). See United States v. Jalos, No. ACM 39138, 2017 CCA LEXIS 607, at *5–6
(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 5 Sep. 2017) (unpub. op.). However, our review of the record of
trial reveals no colorable showing of possible prejudice as a result of the convening
authority’s error and we conclude that no relief is warranted.
2