U S Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, 2019

United States v. Erdmann

U S Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · Decided August 13, 2019

Opinion

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM S32578 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Eric C. ERDMANN Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 13 August 2019 ________________________ Military Judge: Jennifer J. Raab.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months, forfeiture of $1,256.00 pay per month for 2 months, and reduction to E- 2. Sentence adjudged 8 January 2019 by SpCM convened at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel R. Davis Younts, USAF.

Before MINK, LEWIS, and D. JOHNSON, 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 ________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4. ________________________

PER CURIAM: The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er- ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles United States v. Erdmann, No. ACM S32578

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 1 Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. 2, 3

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

1 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.). 2 We note that the court-martial order (CMO) is not dated the same date as the con- vening authority’s action. See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1114(c)(2) (“A promul- gating order shall bear the date of the initial action, if any, of the convening author- ity”). We also note that the header on the top of page 2 of the CMO is not dated the same date as page 1. We direct a corrected court-martial order to reflect the date of the action. 3 Although Appellant raises no specific assignment of error, we note the staff judge advocate recommendation erroneously advised the convening authority that the max- imum sentence that could be imposed by this special court-martial included, inter alia, total forfeitures and a fine. See R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(B)(i); R.C.M. 1003(b)(2) and (3); United States v. Books, No. ACM S32369, 2017 CCA LEXIS 226, at *7 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 31 Mar. 2017) (unpub. op.). However, under the facts of this case we find no colorable showing of possible prejudice, and therefore we affirm. See United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435, 436–37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citation omitted); United States v. Miller, No. ACM S32433, 2018 CCA LEXIS 207, at *10–11 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 25 Apr. 2018) (unpub. op.).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.