United States v. Langill

• Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: January 29, 2020
• Docket: 201900206
• Status: Published

Opinion

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before TANG, LAWRENCE, and KASPRZYK, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Richard G. LANGILL Aviation Structural Mechanic Second Class (E-5), U.S. Navy Appellant

No. 201900206

Decided: 29 January 2020.

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Military Judge: Captain Aaron C. Rugh, JAGC, USN. Sentence ad- judged 15 April 2019 by a special court-martial convened at Naval Station San Diego, California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement for 11 months, 1 and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Erin L. Alexander, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

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

1 The convening authority suspended confinement in excess of 8 months pursuant to a pretrial agreement. United States v. Langill, NMCCA No. 201900206

PER CURIAM: After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. However, we note that the Entry of Judgment does not accurately reflect the disposition of the charges. The Entry of Judgment does not accurately re- flect the disposition of Specification 3 of the Charge. As referred to special court-martial, Specification 3 alleged Appellant committed an aggravated as- sault. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the lesser-included offense of as- sault consummated by battery. Prior to announcement of the findings, the trial counsel moved to withdraw the greater offense to be dismissed without prejudice upon announcement of sentence, with such dismissal to ripen into dismissal with prejudice upon completion of appellate review in which the findings and sentence have been upheld. Although we find no prejudice from these errors, Appellant is entitled to have court-martial records that correctly reflect the content of his proceeding. United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, pursuant to this Court’s author- ity under Rule for Courts-Martial 1111(c)(2), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.), the Entry of Judgment shall be modified to properly reflect the disposition of the greater offense originally alleged in Specification 3. The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

2 UNITED STATES NMCCA NO. 201900206

v. ENTRY OF Richard G. LANGILL JUDGMENT Aviation Structural Mechanic Second Class (E-5) U. S. Navy As Modified on Appeal Accused 29 January 2020

On 15 April 2019, the Accused was tried at Naval Station San Diego, California by a special court-martial, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Military Judge Captain Aaron C. Rugh, JAGC, USN, presided.

FINDINGS

The following are the Accused’s pleas and the Court’s findings to all offenses the convening authority referred to trial:

Charge : Violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 928. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 1: Assault and Battery on or about 9 August 2018. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 2: Assault and Battery on or about 9 August 2018. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 3: Aggravated Assault on or about 9 August 2018. Plea: Not Guilty of aggravated assault, but Guilty of assault and battery. United States v. Langill, NMCCA No. 201900206 Modified Entry of Judgment

Finding: Guilty of assault and battery. 2

SENTENCE

On 15 April 2019, a military judge sentenced the Accused to the following: Confinement for 11 months. A bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority suspended confinement in excess of 8 months.

2 The greater offense of aggravated assault was withdrawn and dismissed without preju- dice, with such dismissal to ripen into prejudice upon completion of appellate review in which the findings and sentence have been upheld.