United States v. Stephenson

25 M.J. 816, 1988 CMR LEXIS 63, 1988 WL 9525
CourtU S Air Force Court of Military Review
DecidedJanuary 15, 1988
DocketACM 26251
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 25 M.J. 816 (United States v. Stephenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U S Air Force Court of Military Review primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Stephenson, 25 M.J. 816, 1988 CMR LEXIS 63, 1988 WL 9525 (usafctmilrev 1988).

Opinion

DECISION

MURDOCK, Judge:

The appellant was found guilty, by a military judge sitting alone, of several drug offenses. She was originally arraigned on two charges. All specifications of Charge I (now the Charge) alleged possession of the same drug, and that the possession occurred in the same vicinity. Five of the specifications alleged specific dates for the possessions, and one specification alleged a five month period which encompassed the times alleged in all of the five other specifications. Charge II alleged forgery of the prescriptions required to obtain the controlled substance. The military judge found the forgery offenses, which [817]*817were alleged as violations of Article 133, U.C.M.J., 10 U.S.C. § 833, multiplicious with the drug possession offenses and dismissed them. The appellant was sentenced to dismissal, confinement for 13 months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. Appellant now asserts, as she did at trial, that the drug possession specifications are multiplicious for findings. We agree.

The government is free to charge events such as those in this case as a series of separate specifications, or they can charge them as a single specification. What is improper is to go to findings on both the specific-series specifications and the related “umbrella” specification. United States v. Maynazarian, 12 U.S.C.M.A. 484, 31 C.M.R. 70 (1961); United States v. Cottle, 11 M.J. 572 (A.F.C.M.R.1981), aff'd on unrelated grounds, 14 M.J. 260 (C.M.A.1982). We will correct this error by setting aside and dismissing Specifications 1 through 5 of the Charge.

The military judge announced that he considered the specifications which we have dismissed to be multiplicious for sentencing with the specification we have affirmed. Nonetheless, to eliminate any prejudice appellant may have suffered in the initial review process, we will approve only so much of the sentence as includes a dismissal, six months confinement, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

The findings and the sentence, both as modified, are

AFFIRMED.

Senior Judge FORAY and Judge MICHALSKI concur.

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

Related

United States v. Rodriguez
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, 2017
United States v. Anastacio
56 M.J. 830 (U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, 2002)
United States v. Neblock
40 M.J. 747 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1994)
United States v. Gill
37 M.J. 501 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1993)
United States v. Cumbee
30 M.J. 736 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 M.J. 816, 1988 CMR LEXIS 63, 1988 WL 9525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stephenson-usafctmilrev-1988.