United States v. REDMOND

Opinion

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before KISOR, GANNON, and HARRELL Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Roneshia L. REDMOND Damage Controlman First Class Petty Officer (E-6), U.S. Navy Appellant

No. 202300130 (f rev)

Decided: 11 June 2025

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary upon further review following remand from The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Military Judge: Justin R. McEwen

Sentence adjudged 1 March 2023 by special court-martial tried at Naval Support Activity Souda Bay, Greece, consisting of a military judge sit- ting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-5 and forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for three months.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Zoe R. Danielczyk, JAGC, USN United States v. Redmond, NMCCA No. 202300120 Opinion of the Court

For Appellee: Lieutenant Michael A. Tuosto, JAGC, USN

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

PER CURIAM: This case is before us a second time. A military judge convicted Appellant, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of willful disobedience of a petty of- ficer in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 1 Ap- pellant filed a timely appeal raising a single assignment of error: whether the evidence is factually insufficient to support her conviction. 2 We found no prej- udicial error and affirmed. 3 The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces summarily set aside our decision and returned the record of trial to the Judge Advocate Gen- eral of the Navy for remand to us to conduct a new factual sufficiency review consistent with its decision in United States v. Harvey 4 and Article 66. 5 Apply- ing the appropriate standard from those authorities, we again affirm Appel- lant’s conviction for willful disobedience of a petty officer. 6 After careful consideration of the record and briefs of appellate counsel we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and

1 Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 891.

2 Appellant raised this issue pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431

(C.M.A. 1982). 3 United States v. Redmond, No. 202300130, 2024 CCA LEXIS 326 (N-M. Ct. Crim.

App. Aug. 6, 2024) (per curiam), set aside, No. 25-0003/NA, __ M.J. __, 2024 CAAF LEXIS 752 (C.A.A.F. Nov. 25, 2024) (mem.). 4 United States v. Harvey, 85 M.J. 127 (C.A.A.F. 2024).

5 10 U.S.C. § 866.

6 Appellant stated, “This is me leaving” in response to an order from a gate guard

to the effect that “you can’t leave.” And then she left. R. at 253-54. We find this frank exchange to be dispositive of this issue.

2 United States v. Redmond, NMCCA No. 202300120 Opinion of the Court

that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 7 However, we note that the Entry of Judgment is deficient in two respects. First, it does not adequately summarize each specification referred to trial as required by Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1111(b)(1)(A) and United States v. Wadaa. 8 Second, it does not reflect the findings for the charges referred to trial, but only that of the specifications. Although we find no prejudice, Appel- lant is entitled to have court-martial records that correctly reflect the content of her proceeding. 9 In accordance with R.C.M. 1111(c)(2), we modify the Entry of Judgment and direct that it be included in the record. The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

7 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

8 United States v. Wadaa, 84 M.J. 652, 655 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2024).

9 United States v. Sutton, 81 M.J. 677 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2021); United States v.

Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998).

3 UNITED STATES NMCCA NO. 202300130

v. ENTRY OF Roneshia L. REDMOND JUDGMENT Damage Controlman First Class Petty Officer (E-6) As Modified on Appeal U.S. Navy Accused 11 June 2025

On 1 March 2023, the Accused was tried at Naval Support Activity Souda Bay, Greece, by special court-martial consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Military Judge Justin R. McEwen presided.

FINDINGS

The following are the Accused’s pleas and the Court’s finding to all offenses the convening authority referred to trial:

Charge I: Violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 891. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 1: Willfully disobeying the lawful order of a petty officer to submit to a breath analysis on or about 10 December 2022. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Dismissed without prejudice.

Specification 2: Willfully disobeying the lawful order of a petty officer to not drive away from the Entry Control Point on or about 10 December 2022. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. United States v. Redmond, NMCCA No. 202300120 Modified Entry of Judgment

Charge II: Violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 892. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty.

Specification: Failure to obey other lawful order, NAVSUPPACTSOUDABAYINST 5560.2, by refusing to submit to a breath analysis on or about 10 December 2022. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty.

SENTENCE

On 1 March 2023, the military judge sentenced the Accused to the following: Reduction to pay grade E-5. Forfeiture of $1,000 per month for three months.