United States v. JONES

CourtNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
DecidedJanuary 5, 2024
Docket202300228
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. JONES (United States v. JONES) 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. JONES, (N.M. 2024).

Opinion

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HACKEL, KIRKBY, and GROSS Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Teluride M. JONES Private (E-1), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 202300228

Decided: 5 January 2024

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Adam J. Workman

Sentence adjudged 23 May 2023 by a special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Base Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, con- sisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judg- ment: confinement for 12 months, forfeiture of $1,278.00 pay per month for 12 months, and a bad-conduct discharge. 1

For Appellant: Major Joshua P. Keefe, USMC

1 Appellant was credited with 169 days of pretrial confinement. United States v. Jones, NMCCA No. 202300228 Opinion of the Court

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

PER CURIAM: After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error 2, and Appellant having not challenged the factual sufficiency of this case, we have determined that the findings are correct in law, the sentence is correct in law and fact, and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substan- tial rights occurred. 3 The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

2 We note that Appellant was not advised on the record of the maximum possible

punishment for the offenses to which he was pleading guilty as required by Rule for Courts-Martial 910(c). However, we find no prejudice to Appellant as the punishment reflected in Appellant’s negotiated plea agreement mirrored, where applicable, the ju- risdictional maximum punishment of the court. We are therefore convinced that Ap- pellant’s pleas would not have changed. See United States v. Olivares, No. 201800125, 2020 CCA LEXIS 227 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. 2020 Jul. 8, 2020) (unpublished). 3 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. JONES, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jones-nmcca-2024.