UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

KERN, ALDYKIEWICZ, and MARTIN

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Sergeant CRAIG E. JOSEPH

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20130089

Headquarters, Fort Stewart

Tiernan P. Dolan, Military Judge

Lieutenant Colonel Kent Herring, Acting Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Major Amy E. Nieman, JA; Captain Robert N. Michaels, JA (on 

brief). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA (on brief).

28 March 2014

---------------------------------

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

---------------------------------

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, 

pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of absence without leave; two 

specifications of failure to obey a lawful general regulation; two specifications of 

wrongful use of a controlled substance; four specifications of larceny; and six 

specifications of wearing an unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, 

device, or lapel button, in violation of Articles 86, 92, 112a, 121, and 134, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 886, 892, 912a, 921, 934 (2006) [hereinafter 

UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 

confinement for thirty months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to 

E-1. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence, except that he only 

approved 515 days of confinement. 

Appellant’s case is now before this court for review pursuant to Article 66, 

UCMJ. Appellant submitted the case upon its merits for review, but one of his 
JOSEPH—ARMY 20130089

2

personal submissions pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.MA. 

1982), has merit.1 

Appellant was charged in separate specifications of stealing a Playstation 3 

(Specification 2 of Charge V) and a Vizio television (Specification 3 of Charge V). 

At his providence inquiry, appellant stated that he stole the Playstation 3 and the 

television at the same time from the same room and the same owner.2 “When a 

larceny of several articles is committed at substantially the same time and place, it is 

a single larceny even though the articles belong to different persons. ” Manual for 

Courts-Martial, United States (2008 ed.), pt. IV, ¶ 46.c.(1)(h)(ii). We grant relief 

by consolidating the specifications. See United States v. Orr, 20 M.J. 139 (C.M.A. 

1985) (sum. disp.) (granting similar relief). Both items were charged as each having 

a value of less than $500. We affirm a larceny of some value. Although this relief 

reduces appellant’s maximum possible confinement by six months, the sentencing 

landscape otherwise remains unchanged. The other factors announced in United 

States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013), weigh in favor of our ability to 

reassess the sentence at our level, and we affirm the approved sentence.

3

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the entire record, including the matters raised pursuant 

to Grostefon, Specification 3 of Charge V is consolidated into Specification 2 of 

Charge V, which now reads as follows:

In that Sergeant Craig E. Joseph, U.S. Army, did at or near Fort 

Stewart, Georgia, between on or about 20 January 2012 and on or about 

27 January 2012, steal a Playstation 3, serial number CL913607433, 

 

1

The other matters submitted pursuant to Grostefon lack merit.

2

The charge sheet and stipulation of fact both state that appellant stole those items 

between 20 January 2012 and 27 January 2012. Thus, it was logically possible as 

charged and stipulated that appellant stole those items separately. However, 

appellant’s words during the providence inquiry establish that appellant stole both 

items contemporaneously. 

3 We comment briefly on appellant’s claim that he suffered an unreasonable 

multiplication of charges when the government charged him with six violations of

wearing unauthorized ribbons, badges, and a tab, when he improperly wore these 

items at the same time and place. Appellant improperly wore a Bronze Star Medal 

with “V” device, an Army Commendation Medal with “V” device, a Purple Heart 

with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, a Parachutist Badge, Foreign Jump Wings, and a Ranger 

tab. These items all have different significance, and service members receive these 

items for different reasons. The government did not unreasonably multiply the 

charges by charging each violation separately. 
JOSEPH—ARMY 20130089

3

and a Vizio television, serial number LUPDJCK0414169, of some 

value, the property of Specialist J.E.R.

The finding of guilty of Specification 3 of Charge V is set aside and that 

specification is dismissed. The remaining findings of guilty, to include 

Specification 2 of Charge V as modified, are affirmed. Reassessing the 

sentence on the basis of the error noted and the principles of Winckelmann, 

the sentence is affirmed.

FOR THE COURT:

ANTHONY O. POTTI

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court