## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________
No. ACM 40 308

_______ _______ __________
UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Jesse R

. REYNOLDS Staff Sergeant (E

- 5 )

, U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 28 September 20 23

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge : Matthew N. McCall (arraignment); Jason M. Kellhofer

. S entence : Sentence adjudged 15 M arch 2022 by GC M convened at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina

. Sentence entered by military judge on
25 May 2022 : Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 5 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E

- 1.
For Appellant : Major Abhishek S

. Kambli , USAF

. For Appellee : Major M organ R. Christie , USAF ; C aptain Olivia B. Hoff

, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne , Esquire

. Before RICHARDSON

, ANNEXSTAD , and BREEN

, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serv e as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30 .4.

_______ _______ __________ PER CURIAM : A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted Appellant, in accordance with h is pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one charge with

two specifications of abusive sexual contact ; one charge with one specification of sexual abuse of a child involving indecent communication ; one charge with one specification of aggravated assault and one specification of assaultUnited States v. Reynolds , No. ACM 40 308

2 consummated by a battery ; one charge with one specification of obstruction of justice ; and one charge with six specification s of assault consummated by a battery in violation of Articles 120, 120b, 128, and 131b, Uniform o f Code Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 920 , 920b, 928, 931b

. 1
, 2 After accepting Appellant’s pleas, the military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for a total of five years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E

- 1

. Appellant raises one issue: whether his sentence is inappropriately severe

. 3We have carefully considered this issue, and find no discussion or relief is warranted. See United States v. Guinn

, 81 M.J. 195, 204 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (citing United States v. Matias , 25 M.J. 356 (C.M.A. 1987) )

. The findings and sentence as entered are corr ect in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d)

. 4
, 5

1 All references to the UCMJ and Rules for Courts

- Martial (R.C.M.) are to the Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the remaining charges and specifications were dismissed without prejudice, to be dismissed with prejudice upon completion of appellate review: one specification of communicating a t hreat; six specifications of sexual assault; and two specifications of unlawfully photographing the private area of another, in violation of Articles 115, 120, and 120c, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 915, 920, 920c.

3 Appellant personally raises this issue pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).

4 Although not raised by Appellant, we note that the record of trial does not contain acopy of the recording of the preliminary hearing. R.C.M. 405(j)(5) requires the Government to ensure the prel iminary hearing is recorded and R.C.M. 405(l)(2)(B) requires this recording be included as part of the preliminary hearing report. Additionally, if not offered as an exhibit, R.C.M. 1112(f)(1)(A) requires the preliminary hearing report be attached as part of the record for appellate review. Appellant has not claimed prejudice from this omission, and we find none. Moreover, despite this omission we were able to complete our Article 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d), review.

5 We also note an error on the charg e sheet. One specification of abusive sexual contactin violation of Article 120, UCMJ (Specification 1 of Charge II), is lined out and contains illegible writing. It appears the Government made this error when it lined out the specifications that had been withdrawn and dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Appellant’s plea agreement and plea at trial, and the military judge’s findings, Statement of Trial Results, and entry of judgment all indicate that Specification 1 of Charge II was not withdraw n and dismissed. We discern no material prejudice to Appellant’s substantive rights from this error. See United States v. Rodgers , 78 M.J. 736,United States v. Reynolds , No. ACM 40 308

3 Accordingly, t he findings and senten ce are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

738 (A.F. Ct. Crim App. 2019) (finding that an unnoticed error at trial without legal effect had no impact on th e course of the trial and did not prejudice the appellant).