United States v. Smith

Opinion

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40309

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

DeAnthony M. SMITH

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 22 December 2022

________________________

Military Judge: Sterling C. Pendleton. Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 3 May 2022 by GCM convened at Royal Air Force Mildenhall, United Kingdom. Sentence entered by military judge on 25 May 2022: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days, forfeiture of $1,200.00 pay per month for 3 months, and reduction to E-1. For Appellant: None. 1 Before KEY, ANNEXSTAD, and GRUEN, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

1 On 3 May 2022 and again on 23 May 2022, Appellant declined, in writing, appellate

defense counsel representation. See United States v. Xu, 70 M.J. 140 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (mem.); see also Department of the Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice, ¶ 24.3 (14 Apr. 2022).

United States v. Smith, No. ACM 40309

The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d) (Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.)). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.2

FOR THE COURT

ANTHONY F. ROCK, Maj, USAF Acting Clerk of the Court

2 We note that the entry of judgment includes the full name of one of the victims in two

places, despite using the initials of the other victim in all other instances. While such an error certainly undermines the main rationale for using initials in the first place— to protect the privacy of crime victims—Appellant did not allege this error or assert any prejudice. We do not find any prejudice and conclude that no relief is warranted.