United States v. Hayes

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Washington, D.C. UNITED STATES v. Geraldine HAYES Chief Warrant Officer (W-2), U.S. Coast Guard Reserve CGCMG 0276 Docket No. 1353 March 2012 General Court-Martial convened by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Service Center. Tried at Arlington, Virginia, on 9 November 2010, 22-23 December 2010.

Military Judge: CAPT Gary E. Felicetti, USCG Trial Counsel: LCDR Eric D. Masson, USCG Defense Counsel: LT Paul R. Casey, USCG Assistant Defense Counsel: LT Justin Pasay, JAGC, USN Appellate Defense Counsel: LCDR Donna D. Leoce, USCG Appellate Government Counsel: LT Amanda M. Caprari, USCG BEFORE MCCLELLAND, MCGUIRE 1 & JOHNSON Appellate Military Judges

Per curiam: Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of making false official statements, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); five specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; five specifications of making a false claim, in violation of Article 132, UCMJ; and one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer, in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to dismissal, confinement for ninety days, forfeiture of $3,000 pay per month for three months, and a fine of $50,000 or one year of confinement if the fine was not paid. The Convening

Judge McGuire did not participate in this decision.

United States v. Geraldine HAYES, No. 1353 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2012) Authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for dismissal, forfeiture of $3,000 pay per month for three months, and a fine of $16,000 or four months of confinement in lieu of fine.

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.

Decision 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 of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed.

For the Court,

John T. Ure Clerk of the Court