United States v. PANTOVICH

• Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: January 26, 2024
• Docket: 202300297
• Status: Published

Opinion

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HACKEL, PENNIX, and BLOSSER Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Dominic I. PANTOVICH Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 202300297

Decided: 26 January 2024

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Adam J. Workman

Sentence adjudged 15 August 2023 by a special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduc- tion to E-1, confinement for five months, and a bad-conduct discharge. 1

For Appellant: Commander Kyle Calvin Kneese, JAGC, USN

1 Appellant was credited with 98 days of pretrial confinement. United States v. Pantovich, NMCCA No. 202300297 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, 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. 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, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

We note that the military judge failed to announce the assembly of the special court-martial. While this was error, we find it was not a jurisdictional defect. Appellant does not allege prejudice and we find none. See United States v. Goodwin, 60 M.J. 849, 850 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2005) (“Our superior court has held that violations of Article 16, UCMJ, are not jurisdictional, so long as there is ‘substantial compliance’ with its requirements. Thus, such errors must be tested for prejudice.”) (internal citations and punctuation omitted).