United States v. MORROW

• Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 202500388
• Status: Published

Opinion

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HARRELL, ATTANASIO, and KORN Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Benjamin E. MORROW Equipment Operator Chief Petty Officer (E-7), U.S. Navy Appellant

No. 202500388

Decided: 23 January 2026

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Michael F. Whitican

Sentence adjudged 14 May 2025 by a general court-martial tried at Na- val Base Kitsap, Washington, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-4, confine- ment for twelve months, and a fine of $30,000.00. 1

For Appellant: Lieutenant Meggie C. Kane-Cruz, JAGC, USN

1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, the convening authority remitted the automatic

reduction in grade below E-4 (the grade of the adjudged reduction); and deferred and waived automatic forfeitures. United States v. Morrow, NMCCA No. 202500388 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, 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. 2 The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

We note that the military judge, in accordance with the plea agreement, adjudged a $30,000.00 fine for each specification to which Appellant pleaded guilty, and then ruled that “[t]he sentence to . . . fines for all charges and specifications will be served concur- rently with each other.” This was an error, as only adjudged confinement can be served concurrently. See Article 56(c)(4), UCMJ (“In announcing the sentence . . . in a general or special court-martial, the military judge shall, with respect to each offense of which the accused is found guilty, specify the term of confinement, if any, and the amount of the fine, if any. If the accused is sentenced to confinement for more than one offense, the military judge shall specify whether the terms of confinement are to run consecu- tively or concurrently.”). However, both parties agreed to this ruling, and it accom- plished what Appellant and the convening authority intended in the plea agreement, and Appellant therefore suffered no prejudice from this error.