UNITED STATES v. Drews

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Washington, D.C. UNITED STATES v. John P. DREWS Food Service Specialist Second Class (E-5), U.S. Coast Guard CGCMG 0185 Docket No. 1181 July 2003 General Court-Martial convened by Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic.

Tried at Norfolk, Virginia, on 12 November 2002.

Military Judge: CAPT Sharon W. Fijalka, USCG Trial Counsel: CDR Steven J. Andersen, USCG Defense Counsel: LT Shirley E. Roman, JAGC, USNR Appellate Defense Counsel: CDR Jeffrey C. Good, USCG Appellate Government Counsel: LCDR John S. Luce, USCG BEFORE PANEL TEN BAUM, McCLELLAND, & CAHILL Appellate Military Judges Per Curiam: Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was found guilty of the following offenses: one specification of violating a lawful general order, in violation of Article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); two specifications of sodomy with a child, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful solicitation to commit an indecent act, two specifications of an indecent act upon a child, and two specifications of indecent liberties with a child, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.

Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for seven years, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence but, in accordance with the pretrial agreement, suspended execution of the confinement in excess of fifty-five months for a period of fifty-five months from the date the sentence was adjudged. Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors. The Government, having examined the United States v. John P. DREWS, No. 1181 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2003) record, submits that the findings and sentence are correct in fact and law.

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Article 66, UCMJ. Upon such review, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and on the basis of the entire record should be approved. Accordingly, the findings and sentence, as approved below, are affirmed.

For the Court,

Roy Shannon Jr. Clerk of the Court