UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 39773

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Angelo A. CURRY, Jr.

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 22 September 2020

________________________

Military Judge: Jefferson B. Brown; Bradley A. Morris.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 1 year, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand.

Sentence adjudged 12 June 2019 by GCM convened at Joint Base San 

Antonio-Lackland, Texas.

For Appellant: Major Rodrigo M. Caruço, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Brian C. Mason, USAF; Mary Ellen 

Payne, Esquire.

Before LEWIS, D. JOHNSON, CADOTTE, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 
United States v. Curry, No. ACM 39773

2

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.1,2

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court

 

1 Although not raised by Appellant, we note that the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) erroneously states “[t]he primary evidence against the [Appellant] consisted of testimony by the adult victim and other witness testimony, photographs, and 

medical evidence. There is no corrective action required in regard to the findings of 

guilty.” In actuality, the primary evidence against the Appellant was his guilty plea 

and a stipulation of fact. Additionally, the SJAR erroneously interchanges “12 months” 

with “one year” for the length of confinement. The length of confinement announced by 

the military judge was “one year.” An error in the SJAR “does not result in an automatic return by the appellate court of the case to the convening authority. Instead, an 

appellate court may determine if the accused has been prejudiced by testing whether 

the alleged error has any merit and would have led to a favorable recommendation by 

the SJA or corrective action by the convening authority.” United States v. Green, 44 

M.J. 93, 95 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (citations omitted). Appellant did not raise the erroneous 

matters contained in the SJAR during clemency or as an assignment of error. Appellant has made no showing of prejudice, and we find none. 

2 We also note, the military judge entered an erroneous finding of “Not Guilty” to 

Charge I and its sole specification when he announced the findings on the charges and 

specifications for which Appellant pleaded guilty. Additionally, withdrawal and dismissal was not properly reflected on the charge sheet by lining out Charge I and its 

specification. Both of these errors were noted by Appellant, but not raised as assignments of error on appeal. Pursuant to the terms of a pretrial agreement, Charge I and 

its specification was to be withdrawn and dismissed. No evidence was presented with 

regard to Charge I and its specification. None of the parties acknowledged the erroneous findings announcement during the trial; however, later in the proceeding, the Government requested permission from the military judge to withdraw and dismiss 

Charge I and its specification. The military judge approved the request. Appellant’s 

submission states “[i]t does not appear Trial Counsel formally withdrew and dismissed

Charge I and its specification on the record.” Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, trial 

counsel did request to withdraw and dismiss on the record and it was approved by the 

military judge. However, as Appellant noted, the trial counsel failed to properly reflect 

dismissal on the charge sheet. Although the charge sheet does not properly reflect dismissal, the SJAR, report of result of trial, and court-martial order all reflect Charge I 

and its specification was withdrawn and dismissed. Therefore, we discern no material 

prejudice to Appellant’s substantial rights. See United States v. Rodgers, 78 M.J. 736 

(A.F. Ct. Crim App. 2019), rev. denied, 79 M.J. 62 (C.A.A.F. 2019).