United States v. McGinnis

• Court: United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: January 9, 2020
• Docket: ACM S32600
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

No. ACM S32600 ________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee v. Austin B. MCGINNIS Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 9 January 2020 ________________________

Military Judge: Shaun S. Speranza. Sentence: Sentence adjudged 7 May 2019 by SpCM convened at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Sentence entered by military judge on 3 June 2019: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 30 days, and reduction to E-1. For Appellant: Major Benjamin H. DeYoung, USAF. For Appellee: Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire. Before J. JOHNSON, POSCH, and KEY, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.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, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). United States v. McGinnis, No. ACM S32600

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 3 June 2019 entry of judgment in this case omitted the convening authority’s denial of Appellant’s request to defer the adjudged reduction in grade required by Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1111(b)(3)(A). However, the request and denial were properly reflected in the convening authority’s 28 May 2019 decision on action, which is attached to the entry of judgment. Therefore, we find no colorable showing of possible prejudice from this minor omission, see United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435, 436–37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citing United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63, 65 (C.A.A.F. 2000)), and cor- rective action is not necessary. See R.C.M. 1111(c).