United States v. Private E2 JOHNNY E. ROMAN ( 2008 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    Before
    HOLDEN, HOFFMAN, and SULLIVAN
    Appellate Military Judges
    UNITED STATES, Appellee
    v.
    Private E2 JOHNNY E. ROMAN
    United States Army, Appellant
    ARMY 20070700
    Headquarters, Fort Stewart
    Donna M. Wright, Military Judge
    Colonel Margaret A. McDevitt, Staff Judge Advocate
    For Appellant:  Colonel Christopher J. O’Brien, JA; Lieutenant Colonel
    Steven C. Henricks, JA; Major Teresa L. Raymond, JA; Captain Nathan J.
    Bankson, JA (on brief).
    For Appellee:  Colonel John W. Miller II, JA; Major Elizabeth G. Marotta,
    JA; Captain Larry W. Downend, JA; Captain Nicole L. Fish, JA (on brief).
    14 March 2008
    --------------------------------
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION
    --------------------------------
    Per Curiam:
    In our review of the case under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military
    Justice, 
    10 U.S.C. § 866
    , we agree with appellant that the military judge
    abused her discretion in accepting his plea of guilty to Specification 3 of
    Charge I, failure to go to a 0615 accountability formation, when appellant
    indicated during the providence inquiry he was not aware of the 0615 time
    of the morning formation.  See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States
    (2005 ed.), Part IV, para. 10.c.(2) (“that the accused actually knew of the
    appointed time and place of duty”).  “If an accused ‘sets up matter
    inconsistent with the plea’ at any time during the proceeding, the military
    judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea.”
    United States v. Phillippe, 
    63 M.J. 307
    , 309 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (quoting
    United States v. Garcia, 
    44 M.J. 496
    , 498 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (citations
    omitted)).  Accordingly, we set aside the finding of guilty to and dismiss
    Specification 3 of  Charge I.
    The remaining findings are affirmed.  Reassessing the sentence on the
    basis of the error noted, the entire record, and applying the principles of
    United States v. Sales, 
    22 M.J. 305
     (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v.
    Moffeit, including Judge
    Baker’s concurring opinion, 
    63 M.J. 40
    , 43 (C.A.A.F. 2006), the court
    affirms the sentence as adjudged.
    FOR THE COURT:
    MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ARMY 20070700

Filed Date: 3/14/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021