United States v. Private First Class JACOB B. RICHERT ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    Before
    COOK, CAMPANELLA, HAIGHT
    Appellate Military Judges
    UNITED STATES, Appellee
    v.
    Private First Class JACOB B. RICHERT
    United States Army, Appellant
    ARMY 20120781
    Headquarters, Fort Carson
    Timothy Grammel, Military Judge
    Colonel John S.T. Irgens, Staff Judge Advocate
    For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan F. Potter, JA; Captain Matthew M.
    Jones, JA (on brief).
    For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA; Major Catherine L.
    Brantley, JA; Captain Samuel Gabremariam, JA (on brief).
    12 August 2013
    ---------------------------------
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION
    ---------------------------------
    CAMPANELLA, Judge:
    A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant,
    pursuant to his plea, of one specification of possessing child pornography, in
    violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 
    10 U.S.C. § 934
     (2006)
    [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct
    discharge, confinement for seventeen months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,
    and reduction to the grade of E1. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, the convening
    authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a bad-conduct
    discharge, confinement for sixteen months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
    reduction to the grade of E1. The convening authority approved appellant’s request
    to waive forfeitures.
    This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellate
    defense counsel raises one assignment of error and appellant personally raises
    matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 
    12 M.J. 431
     (C.M.A. 1982). As
    pointed out by appellate defense counsel in their brief and upon our review under
    Article 66, UCMJ, we find an issue with the convening authority’s initial action and
    RICHERT—ARMY 20120781
    address this below. Those matters personally raised by appellant pursuant to
    Grostefon are without merit.
    The convening authority approved appellant's request for deferment of
    automatic and adjudged forfeitures unti l initial action. Then, at action, the
    convening approved adjudged forfeiture of all pay and allowances but ordered that
    both adjudged and automatic forfeitures be waived for a period of six months and
    paid to the appellant’s wife.
    First, we note waiver of forfeitures for the benefit of dependents is applicable
    to automatic forfeitures, not adjudged. Second, upon approving the adjudge d
    forfeitures, the convening authority’s attempt to further waive the automatic
    forfeitures became legally and procedurally impossible. We find that the clear intent
    of the convening authority at the time of action was to disapprove the adjudged
    forfeitures, to waive the automatic forfeitures, and to direct those funds to be
    payable to appellant’s wife. His failure to accomplish that intent was an
    administrative oversight. Therefore, i n order to effectuate the clear intent of the
    convening authority and in the spirit of judicial economy, we will correct this error
    by granting relief in our decretal paragraph.
    CONCLUSION
    On consideration of the entire record, submissions by the parties, and those
    matters personally raised by appellant pursuant to Grostefon, we hold the findings of
    guilty are correct in law in fact and are AFFIRMED.
    Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted and the entire record,
    and applying the criteria of United States v. Sales, 
    22 M.J. 305
     (C.M.A. 1986) and
    United States v. Moffeit, 
    63 M.J. 40
     (C.A.A.F. 2006), to include the factors
    identified by Judge Baker in his concurring op inion in Moffeit, only so much of the
    sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for sixteen months,
    and reduction to the grade of E1 is AFFIRMED. All rights, privileges, and property,
    of which appellant was deprived by virtue of that p ortion of his sentence being set
    aside by this decision, are hereby ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58(b) and 75(a).
    Senior Judge COOK and Judge HAIGHT concur.
    FOR THE COURT:
    ANTHONY O. POTT
    Chief Deputy
    ANTHONY      Clerk o
    O. POTTINGER
    Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ARMY 20120781

Filed Date: 8/12/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021