## 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 sentence d ap pellant 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

approve d 515 days of confinement.

Appellant’s cas e is now before this court for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellan t submitted the case upon its merits for review, but one of hisJOSEPH

— 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 specification s 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 Plays tation 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 e ach 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

Sta tes 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 Groste

fon

, 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 Januar y 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

weari ng 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 ha ve 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