## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before CAMPANELLA, HERRING, and PENLAND Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Sergeant ANDREW M. JONES United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20140528

Headquarters, United States Army Mane uver Center of Excellence (trial) Headquarters, United States Army Military District of Washington (DuBay) Charles A. Kuhfahl Jr., Military Judge (trial) S. Charles Neill, Mili tary Judge (DuBay) Colonel Charles C. Poché, Staff Judge Advocate (trial) Colonel John P. Carrell, Sta ff Judge Advocate (DuBay)

For Appellant: Capt ain Amanda Renée McNeil Wi lliams, JA; Philip D. Cave, Esquire; J. Thomas Province , Esquire (on brief); Captain Joshua B. Fix, JA; Philip D. Cave, Esquire; J. Thomas Province, Esqui re (on reply brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colone l A.G. Courie, III, JA; Major Cormac M. Smith, JA; Capt ain Linda Chavez, JA (on brief).

2 May 2017

--------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON FURTHER REVIEW

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

HERRING, Judge:

A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of four sp ecifications of indece nt acts with a child and communicating a threat in violation of Article 134 of th e Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct disc harge, confinement for three years, and reduction to the grade of E- 1. The convening authority dismissed Specification 8 of Charge III because it was ba rred by the statute of limitation and approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for thirty-six months, and redu ction to the grade of E-2.JONES—ARMY 20140528

2 On 23 November 2016 this court returned appellant’s record of trial to The Judge Advocate General fo r a hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay , 17 U.S.C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967). United States v. Jones , ARMY 20140528 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 23 N ov. 2016) (order ). On 2 February 2017, the DuBay hearing concluded. The milita ry judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to whet her appellant’s defense counsel were ineffectiv e. (App. Ex. LXXXIII). We hereby adopt hi s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree

that defense counsel were deficient in faili ng to: 1) “present ev idence about [TB’s] motives to engineer this prosecution and her repeated statements that she would makes sure [appellant] was punished;” 2) “conduct a full investigation regarding [TB] and her motives to fabricate;” and 3) “prepare [appellan t] to testify.” Appellant was found not guilty of nineteen sp ecifications. The fi ve specifications of which he was found guilty al l involved TB’s childre n. We agree there is a reasonable prob ability of a more favora ble result had the defici encies not occurred.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated prev iously, the findin gs of guilty and the sentence are set aside. A rehearing may be ordered by the same or a different convening authority. All right, privil eges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of the findings and sentence set aside by th is decision, are ordered

restored. See UCMJ arts. 58a(b), 58b(c), 75(a).

Senior Judge CAMPANELLA and Judge PENLAND concur.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: