United States v. Pruitt

CourtNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
DecidedAugust 29, 2019
Docket201900071
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Pruitt (United States v. Pruitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Pruitt, (N.M. 2019).

Opinion

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before FULTON, CRISFIELD, and C. STEPHENS 1 Appellate Military Judges _________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Joshua N. PRUITT Boatswain’s Mate Second Class (E-5), U.S. Navy Appellant

No. 201900071

Decided: 29 August 2019. Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Military Judge: Captain Jonathan T. Stephens, JAGC, USN. Sentence adjudged 23 October 2018 by a special court-martial convened at Western Judicial Circuit Courthouse, Naval Base San Diego, Califor- nia, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by the convening authority: reduction to E-1, confinement for 6 months, and a bad-conduct discharge. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton, JAGC, USN. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq. _________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a). _________________________

1 Appellate Judge Carrie Stephens, Captain, JAGC, USN, is not related to the Military Judge, Jonathan Stephens, Captain, JAGC, USN. United States v. Pruitt, No. 201900071

PER CURIAM: After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are cor- rect in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. However, the convening authority’s action contains erroneous infor- mation. In the discussion of Specification 8 of Charge I, the action references footnote 5. The correct reference is footnote 7. In footnote 7, it states that Specifications 5 and 8 of Charge I were withdrawn and dismissed. In fact, Specifications 6 and 8 were withdrawn and dismissed. These errors shall be corrected in the promulgating order. The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Pruitt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pruitt-nmcca-2019.