United States v. Miholerwortinger

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HOLIFIELD, PENNIX, and HACKEL

Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES

Appellee v.

Zachariah B. MIHOLERWORTINGER

Aviation Electronics Technician Third Class (E-4), U.S. Navy

Appellant No. 202100254

_________________________

Decided: 29 April 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge:

Donald R. Ostrom

Sentence adjudged 18 June 2021 by a special court-martial convened at Naval Base Norfolk, Virginia, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant:

Lieutenant Commander W. Scott Stoebner, JAGC, USN

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________ United States v. Miholerwortinger, NMCCA No. 202100254

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. We note that according to Rule for Court-Martial 1101(a), the Statement of Trial

Results must accurately reflect the sentence of the court-martial. In this case, the Statement of Trial Results “Section B” does not accurately reflect the sentence of the court-martial. However, we find no prejudice, nor do we find it necessary to order mod- ification of the Statement of Trial Results, as the Entry of Judgment correctly reflects the sentence of the court-martial.

We also note that the military judge failed to announce the assembly of the special court-martial. While this was error, we find it was not a jurisdictional defect. Appellant does not allege prejudice and we find none. See United States v. Goodwin, 60 M.J. 849, 850 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2005) (“Our superior court has held that violations of Article 16, UCMJ, are not jurisdictional, so long as there is “substantial compliance” with its requirements. Thus, such errors must be tested for prejudice.”) (Internal citations and punctuation omitted).