United States v. Johnson

Opinion

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32782

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Chanson A. JOHNSON

Master Sergeant (E-7), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 16 January 2025

________________________

Military Judge: Adam D. Bentz. Sentence: Sentence adjudged 9 April 2024 by SpCM convened at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Sentence entered by military judge on 29 April 2024: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 30 days, reduction to E- 4, and a reprimand. For Appellant: Major Nicole J. Herbers, USAF. For Appellee: Major Vanessa Bairos, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire. Before ANNEXSTAD, DOUGLAS, and PERCLE, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, in accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one specification of wrongful use of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance,

United States v. Johnson, No. ACM S32782

on divers occasions, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform of Code Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a.1 The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 30 days, reduction to the grade of E-4, and a reprimand. On 22 April 2024, the convening authority took no action on the findings or sentence.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the post-trial processing of Appellant’s case was improperly completed when the staff judge advocate found 18 U.S.C. § 922 applied to Appellant’s conviction of a nonviolent offense; and (2) whether Appellant’s sentence is inappropriately severe.2

We have carefully considered the issues raised by Appellant and find they do not require discussion or relief. See United States v. Guinn, 81 M.J. 195, 204 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (citing United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A. 1987)); see also United States v. Vanzant, 84 M.J. 671, 681 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2024) (holding the 18 U.S.C. § 922 firearm prohibition notation included in the staff judge advocate’s indorsement to the entry of judgment is beyond a Court of Criminal Appeals’ statutory authority to review), rev. granted, __ M.J. __, No. 24-0182, 2024 CAAF LEXIS 640 (C.A.A.F. 17 Oct. 2024).

As entered, the findings are correct in law, and the sentence is correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

1 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

2 Issue 2 was personally raised by Appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon,

12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).