United States v. Sergeant JEFFREY T. ROACH

• Court: Army Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: May 5, 2008
• Docket: ARMY 20070355
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before HOLDEN, HOFFMAN, and SULLIVAN Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Sergeant JEFFREY T. ROACH United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20070355

Headquarters, Fort Hood Theodore E. Dixon, Military Judge

For Appellant: Major Sean Mangan; Colonel Allen F. Bareford (on brief); Colonel Christopher J. O’Brien, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Steven C. Henricks, JA; Major Sean F. Mangan, JA; Major William M. Fischbach III (on motion).

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Francis C. Kiley; Captain W. Todd Kuchenthal, JA (on brief); Major Elizabeth G. Marotta, JA; Major Tami L. Dillahunt, JA; Captain Adam S. Kazin, JA (on motion).

5 May 2008

---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON RECONSIDERATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of indecent acts with a child in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence to a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $600.00 pay per month for twelve months, and reduction to Private E1.

This case was originally submitted to the court under Article 66, UCMJ, upon its merits without any assigned errors. The findings and sentence were affirmed by this court in an opinion issued on 5 November 2007. Pursuant to Rules 13, 19, and 23 of this court’s Internal Rules of Practice and Procedure, appellant petitioned for reconsideration of our decision. We granted the motion on 5 May 2008, thereby vacating our 5 November 2007 decision.

Appellant requested reconsideration based on the decision of our superior court in United States v. Lopez de Victoria, which would invalidate appellant’s conviction because of the expiration of the statute of limitations for the offense for which appellant was convicted. 66 M.J. 67, 74 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (“[D]eclining to extend the reach of the 2003 amendment to Article 43, UCMJ, to cases which arose prior to the amendment of the statute.”).

Applying Lopez De Victoria to the case under review, the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside and dismissed. All rights, privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived of are ordered restored. See Article 58b(c) and 75(a), UCMJ.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. Clerk of Court