United States v. Massie

• Court: United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: December 13, 2022
• Docket: 40182
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

No. ACM 40182 ________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee v. Zane A. MASSIE Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 13 December 2022 ________________________

Military Judge: Bryon T. Gleisner. Sentence: Sentence adjudged 7 June 2021 by GCM convened at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. Sentence entered by military judge on 30 June 2021: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 18 months, and re- duction to E-1. For Appellant: Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF; Major Jarett F. Merk, USAF. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Alford, USAF; Major John P. Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire. Before POSCH, RICHARDSON, and CADOTTE, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.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: The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), United States v. Massie, No. ACM 40182

866(d). Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.*

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

* The summary of two convictions in the 30 June 2021 entry of judgment are incorrect.

See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1111(b)(1) (requiring “a summary of each charge and specification”). Specification 1 of Charge I misidentifies the location as “Sumter, South Carolina,” and not “Bristol, Tennessee.” Specification 3 of the same charge mis- identifies the location as “Sumter,” and not “Columbia,” South Carolina. Appellant did not file a post-trial motion for correction of the entry of judgment. See R.C.M. 1104(b)(1)(E), (F). Appellant has not claimed prejudice from the errors and we find none. We find corrective action under R.C.M. 1111(c) unnecessary, moreover, because the findings and sentence are entered correctly as the judgment of the court-martial under Article 60c, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860c.