United States v. Wells

• Court: United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: S32762 (f rev)
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

No. ACM S32762 (f rev) ________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee v. Damien M. WELLS Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 22 July 2025 ________________________

Military Judge: Sterling C. Pendleton. Sentence: Sentence adjudged 7 July 2023 by SpCM convened at Ram- stein Air Base, Germany. Sentence entered by military judge on 9 Feb- ruary 2024: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 345 days, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. For Appellant: Major Heather M. Bruha, USAF; Major Rebecca J. Saathoff, USAF. For Appellee: Colonel Steven R. Kaufman, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel J. Pete Ferrell, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel Jenny A. Liabenow , USAF; Ma- jor Kate E. Lee, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs, USAF; Major Jocelyn Q. Wright, USAF; Captain Morgan L. Brewington, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire. Before JOHNSON, MASON, and KEARLEY, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4. ________________________ United States v. Wells, No. ACM S32762 (f rev)

PER CURIAM: A military judge sitting alone as a special court-martial convicted Appel- lant, in accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one specification of failing to obey a lawful order and three specifications of violat- ing a lawful general regulation, in violation of Article 92 Uniform Code of Mil- itary Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 892; one specification of communicating a threat, in violation of Article 115, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 915; four specifications of wrongful distribution of an intimate visual image, in violation of Article 117a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 917a; one specification of battery upon a spouse, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 928; two specifications of obstruc- tion of justice, in violation of Article 131b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 931b; and four specifications of indecent conduct and two specifications of wire fraud, in vio- lation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934.1 Appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 345 days, reduction to E-1, and a rep- rimand. Appellant requested deferment of the reduction in rank. He also re- quested deferment or waiver of the automatic forfeitures. The convening au- thority denied Appellant’s requested deferment of the reduction in rank and automatic forfeitures.2 He waived the automatic forfeitures for a period of six months. He took no action on the findings or the sentence. Initial review of the record revealed irregularities in the Statement of Trial Results (STR) and the entry of judgment (EoJ) produced for this case. On 18 December 2023, we issued a show cause order directing the Government to show cause as to why this court should not remand the record for correction or take corrective action due to these irregularities. The Government responded stating that the court should remand the record for correction. On 18 January 2024, we remanded the case for correction of the EoJ and other erroneous post- trial documentation. On 9 February 2024, a new EoJ was signed by the mili- tary judge. The record was redocketed with the court on 12 February 2024.

1 References to the punitive articles of the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial,

United States (2019 ed.). References to the Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.). 2 Although not raised by Appellant, we note that the convening authority failed to in-

clude a reason for denying Appellant’s deferment request. See United States v. Sloan, 35 M.J. 4, 7 (C.M.A. 1992) (holding the convening authority’s decision on a deferral request “must include the reasons upon which the action is based” in order to facilitate judicial review (footnote omitted)), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Dinger, 77 M.J. 447, 453–54 (C.A.A.F. 2018); see also Article 57(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857(b); R.C.M. 1103. Appellant has not claimed any prejudice from this error, and we find none.

2 United States v. Wells, No. ACM S32762 (f rev)

Appellant raises one issue on appeal. He asserts that the EoJ should be corrected again to reflect that Appellant was found guilty of Article 128, UCMJ, rather than Article 128b, UCMJ. The Government concurs that the EoJ needs to be corrected yet again. We therefore take corrective action pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1111(c)(2). The EoJ is modified by excepting “Art 128b” from the “Arraigned Of- fense(s)” for Second Additional Charge I and substituting therefore “Art 128.” The findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the findings, as modi- fied in the entry of judgment, and sentence, are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court