United States v. Ford

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM S32503
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Robert J. FORD
Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 30 July 2018
________________________
Military Judge: Donald R. Eller, Jr. (arraignment); Vance H. Spath.
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days,
forfeiture of $950.00 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to E-1.
Sentence adjudged 5 December 2017 by SpCM convened at Scott Air
Force Base, Illinois.
For Appellant: Captain Meghan R. Glines-Barney, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Mary Ellen
Payne, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, DENNIS, and LEWIS, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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. Ford, No. ACM S32503
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. * 0F
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
* Although Appellant raises no specific assignment of error, we note the staff judge
advocate recommendation erroneously advised the convening authority that the max-
imum sentence that could be imposed by this special court-martial included, inter alia,
a fine in addition to forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 12 months. See Rule for
Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 201(f)(2)(B)(i); R.C.M. 1003(b)(3); United States v. Books, No.
ACM S32369, 2017 CCA LEXIS 226 at *7 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 31 A.K. Marsh. 2017 (unpub.
op.). However, under the facts of this case we find no colorable showing of possible
prejudice and, therefore, we affirm. See United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435, 436–37
(C.A.A.F. 2005).
2