United States v. Private E2 RONALD J. GUILETTE II

• Court: Army Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: April 24, 2008
• Docket: ARMY 20051539
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before HOLDEN, HOFFMAN, and SULLIVAN Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Private E2 RONALD J. GUILETTE II United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20051539

U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill Grant Jaquith, Military Judge Colonel Randall L. Keys, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Steven C. Henricks, JA; Major Fansu Ku, JA; Captain Richard P. Pizur, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel John W. Miller II, JA; Major Elizabeth G. Marotta, JA; Michael C. Friess, JA; Captain Nicole L. Fish (on brief).

24 April 2008

-------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION --------------------------------

Per Curiam:

This case is before us for review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 [hereinafter UCMJ]. Appellant was charged, inter alia, with two specifications of forgery in violation of Article 123, UCMJ. At trial, appellant pled guilty to both forgery specifications. Appellant now alleges the specifications failed to state offenses because the charged writings were not documents that apparently impose a legal liability upon another or change another’s legal rights. We accept the government concession that the forged sick slips do not support forgery charges; we set aside and dismiss Charge VI and its two specifications. See United States v. Young, 21 C.M.R. 431 (A.B.R. 1956) (holding a sick slip could not be the predicate of a forgery charge); cf. United States v. Abbey, 63 M.J. 631, 635-36 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (plea of guilty to altering public document was improvident because a sick slip was not public document).

The remaining findings of guilty are affirmed. We have considered the remaining specified assignments of error and those matters raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and find them to be without merit. Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted, the entire record, and applying the principles of United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v. Moffeit, including Judge Baker’s concurring opinion, 63 M.J. 40, 42 (C.A.A.F. 2006), the court affirms the sentence.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. Clerk of Court