United States v. Specialist EDUARDITO DEHOYOS-GUASH

• Court: Army Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: August 28, 2013
• Docket: ARMY 20120894
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before YOB, LIND, KRAUSS Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Specialist EDUARDITO DEHOYOS-GUASH United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20120894

Headquarters, Fort Stewart Tiernan P. Dolan and Craig S. Denney, Military Judges Lieutenant Colonel Francisco A. Vila, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Potter, JA; Captain A. Jason Nef, JA; Captain Robert A. Feldmeier, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Captain Kenneth W. Borgnino, JA (on brief).

28 August 2013

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

KRAUSS, Judge:

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of absence without leave (AWOL) in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 886 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. Appellant was acquitted of a separate specification of AWOL. The military judge sentenced appellant to reduction to the grade of E-1, 90 days hard labor without confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority approved only the sentence to reduction to the grade of E-1 and a bad-conduct discharge.

This case is before this court for review under Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant complains that he was improperly subjected to hard labor without confinement and requests disapproval of the bad-conduct discharge as an appropriate remedy. The government concedes that appellant improperly suffered hard labor without confinement but asserts that disapproval of appellant’s reduction in rank is an appropriate remedy. We agree with the government. See UCMJ art. 57(c); Rule for DEHOYOS-GUASH — ARMY 20120894

Courts-Martial 1113(a); see also United States v. Collins, 44 M.J. 830 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1996).

After considering the entire record and the parties’ briefs, the findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. This court affirms only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge. All rights, privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of the sentence set aside by this decision, are ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58b(c) and 75(a).

Senior Judge YOB and Judge LIND concur.

FOR FOR THE THE COURT: COURT:

MALCOLM H. MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, SQUIRES, JR. JR. Clerk of Court Clerk of Court