United States v. Summers

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Aaron M. SUMMERS Food Service Specialist Third Class (E-4), U.S. Coast Guard CGCMSP 24953 Docket No. 1449 February 2018 Special Court-Martial convened by Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. Tried at Charleston, South Carolina, on 31 August 2016.

Military Judge: CAPT Benes Z. Aldana, USCG Appellate Defense Counsel: LT Jason W. Roberts, USCG Appellate Government Counsel: LT Connor B. Simpson, USCG

BEFORE MCCLELLAND, HERMAN & LUCE Appellate Military Judges

Per curiam: Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of indecent visual recording and one specification of distribution of an indecent visual recording, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for six months, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence.

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.

United States v. Aaron M. SUMMERS, No. 1449 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2018)

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.1

For the Court,

Sarah P. Valdes Clerk of the Court

Appellant points out in a footnote to his brief that the Convening Authority’s action was dated 142 days after the court-martial adjourned, and a corrected action was dated 180 days after the court-martial adjourned. The case was referred to this Court three days after the corrected action. Appellant has not asserted prejudice or requested relief based on post-trial delay. We do not discern any prejudice and find no relief warranted.