United States v. Santa Cruz

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM S32769 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Miguel A. SANTA CRUZ, Jr. Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ____________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 29 October 2024 ________________________ Military Judge: Bradley J. Palmer.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 26 October 2023 by SpCM convened at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. Sentence entered by military judge on December 2023: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 85 days, re- duction to E-1, and a reprimand.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Anthony J. Ghiotto, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel J. Peter Ferrell, USAF; Major Regina M.B. Henenlotter, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before: ANNEXSTAD, DOUGLAS, and PERCLE, 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 ________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.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: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, in accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one specifica- tion of wrongful distribution of cocaine on divers occasions, and one specifica- tion of wrongful use of cocaine in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of United States v. Santa Cruz, Jr., No. ACM S32769

Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a.1 The military judge sentenced Ap- pellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 85 days, reduction to the grade of E-1, and a reprimand. On 9 November 2023, the convening authority took no action on the findings or sentence.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal which we reworded: (1) whether trial counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct during sentencing argument; and (2) whether Appellant’s sentence is inappropriately severe.2 We have carefully considered these issues and find they do not require dis- cussion or relief. See United States v. Guinn, 81 M.J. 195, 204 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (citing United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A. 1987)).

The findings are correct in law and the sentence as entered is correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accord- ingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

1 Reference to the punitive article is to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.); all other references to the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.).

2Both issues were personally raised by Appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).