United States v. ARNOLD

CourtNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
DecidedDecember 11, 2025
Docket202400368
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. ARNOLD (United States v. ARNOLD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. ARNOLD, (N.M. 2025).

Opinion

Before DALY, HARRELL, and KORN Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Daniel H. ARNOLD Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 202400368

Decided: 11 December 2025

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judges: Derek A. Poteet (Arraignment) Aran T. Walsh (Motions and Trial)

Sentence adjudged 31 May 2024 by a general court-martial tried at Ma- rine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 12 months, and a dishonorable discharge.

For Appellant: Ms. Kimberly D. Hinson

For Appellee: Commander Jeremy R. Brooks, JAGC, USN Commander John T. Cole, JAGC, USN United States v. Arnold, NMCCA No. 202400368 Opinion of the Court

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

PER CURIAM: Appellant was convicted, consistent with his pleas, of two specifications of sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Article 120b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for exposing his genitalia and communicating indecent lan- guage to a child who had not attained the age of 16 years. 1 Appellant asserts one assignment of error: Are Appellant’s pleas improvi- dent where he could not and did not give an informed waiver of his Constitu- tional rights? 2 We have carefully considered the matters raised by Appellant in his brief and find they do not require discussion or relief. 3 We have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 4 The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

1 10 U.S.C. § 920b.

2 Raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).

3 See United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A. 1987).

4 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Grostefon
12 M.J. 431 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1982)
United States v. Matias
25 M.J. 356 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. ARNOLD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arnold-nmcca-2025.