United States v. Romero

U.S. v. Romero

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Washington, DC UNITED STATES v. Tony L. ROMERO Marine Science Technician Second Class (E-5), U.S. Coast Guard CGCMS 24132 Docket No. 1085 September 1997 Special Court-Martial convened by Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office, Port Arthur, Texas.

Tried at Nederland, Texas on 5 December 1996.

Military Judge: CDR G. R. Wheatley, USCG Trial Counsel: LCDR Thomas D. Beistle, USCG Assistant Trial Counsel: LTJG Stephen J. Alvarez, USCG Detailed Defense Counsel: LT Christopher Batman, JAGC, USNR Appellate Defense Counsel: LT Richard R. Beyer, USCGR Appellate Government Counsel: LT William G. Rospars, USCG BEFORE PANEL TWO BAUM, KANTOR, McCLELLAND Appellate Military Judges Per Curiam: Appellant was tried by a special court-martial before a military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of absence without leave, two specifications of wrongful use of cocaine, one specification of wrongful appropriation of an automobile, and one specification of assault, in violation of Articles 86, 112a, 121and 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The judge sentenced appellant to reduction to paygrade E-3, confinement for 75 days, and a Bad-Conduct discharge. The convening authority reduced the confinement to 61 days and approved the remainder of the sentence as adjudged, file:///W|/cg094/cca/Court_of_Criminal_Appeals_Opini...2%20United%20States%20v.%20Romero,%20Unpublished.htm (1 of 2) [3/10/2011 2:46:07 PM] U.S. v. Romero which was within the terms of the pretrial agreement.

Appellant assigned as error that the promulgating order incorrectly identified Charge II as arising under Article 122a, UCMJ, rather than Article 112a. In response, the Government filed a corrected Court- Martial Order with this Court on 4 September 1997, which now correctly reflects that the conviction was pursuant to 112a, UCMJ. This defect has therefore been cured.

Aside from that defect, and without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in fact and law, Appellant has submitted his case on its merits as to any and all issues. In this regard, we have reviewed the record in accordance with Article 66, UCMJ. Upon such review, the findings and sentence are determined to be correct in law and fact and on the basis of the entire record should be approved.

Accordingly, the findings and sentence, as approved and partially suspended below, are affirmed.

Chief Judge Baum and Judge Kantor concur. Judge McClelland did not participate in the decision.

For the Court R. Hamish Waugh Clerk of the Court file:///W|/cg094/cca/Court_of_Criminal_Appeals_Opini...2%20United%20States%20v.%20Romero,%20Unpublished.htm (2 of 2) [3/10/2011 2:46:07 PM]