United States v. Staff Sergeant RYAN ROBEY

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before WALKER, POND, and PARKER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Staff Sergeant RYAN R. ROBEY United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20220635 Headquarters, Fort Carson Jacqueline L. Emanuel, Military Judge Colonel Pia W. Rogers, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Lieutenant Colonel Kenton Spiegler, Acting Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) Colonel Jason Elbert, Staff Judge Advocate (on remand) For Appellant: Major Robert D. Luyties, JA; Major Justin P. Paulette, JA.

For Appellee: Pursuant to A.C.C.A. Rule 17.4, no response filed.

10 July 2024 This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent.

Per Curiam: Appellant’s case is before this court again after it was remanded to the military judge by this court to ensure: (1) the Staff Judge Advocate completed a corrected clemency advice; (2) the convening authority entered a corrected action that comported with the terms of the plea agreement; and (3) modification of the entry of judgment (EOJ) to reflect the convening authority took the appropriate action in accordance with the plea agreement.”

“On 6 December 2022, the military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, consistent with his pleas, of one specification of absence without leave and one specification of selling military property without proper authority, in violation of Articles 86 and 108, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 908 [UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for a total of 150 days.

ROBEY — ARMY 20220635 On 7 May 2024, the military judge completed the modified EOJ in compliance with this court’s order. On 8 May 2024, appellant’s case was again referred to this court for appellate review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. On 11 June 2024, appellant submitted his case to this court on its merits with no specific assignments of error.

On consideration of the entire record, we hold the findings of guilty and the sentence, as entered in the Judgment, correct in law and fact. Accordingly, those findings of guilty and the sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: JAMES W. HERRING, JR. Clerk of Court