UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

M.D. MODZELEWSKI, R.Q. WARD, J.R. MCFARLANE

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANTHONY J. ALDONIS

PRIVATE FIRST CLASS (E-2), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201300306

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 29 April 2013.

Military Judge: Col G.W. Riggs, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft 

Wing, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Cherry Point, NC.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LtCol J.J. Murphy, 

USMC.

For Appellant: CAPT Brent Filbert, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: CAPT Frank J. Foil, JAGC, USN; Maj Crista D. 

Kraics, USMC.

20 February 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

THIS OPINION DOES NOT SERVE AS BINDING PRECEDENT, BUT MAY BE CITED AS 

PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY UNDER NMCCA RULE OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 18.2.

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial, 

convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of attempted 

sodomy on a child under the age of twelve years, committing a 

lewd act on a child under the age of twelve years, and adultery, 

in violation of Articles 80, 120, and 134, Uniform Code of 

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 920, and 934. The military 

judge sentenced the appellant to eight years confinement, 
2

reduction to pay grade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The 

convening authority (CA) approved the sentence as adjudged.

In his sole assigned error, the appellant characterizes his 

sentence as inappropriately severe and urges us to affirm only a 

confinement period of four years and a dishonorable discharge. 

We have examined the record of trial, the appellant's assignment 

of error, and the pleadings of the parties. We conclude that 

the findings and the sentence are correct in law and fact and 

that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights 

of the appellant was committed. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.

 Discussion

This court reviews the appropriateness of the sentence de 

novo. United States v. Roach, 66 M.J. 410, 413 (C.A.A.F. 2008). 

We engage in a review that gives “‘individualized consideration’ 

of the particular accused ‘on the basis of the nature and

seriousness of the offense and the character of the offender.’” 

United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 (C.M.A. 1982) 

(quoting United States v. Mamaluy, 27 C.M.R. 176, 180-181 

(C.M.A. 1959)). 

Here, the appellant engaged in sexual intercourse with a 

fellow Marine’s spouse while the Marine was on deployment in 

Afghanistan. The appellant then entered the bedroom of the 

deployed Marine’s seven-year-old daughter, exposed himself, 

forced her to engage in sexual touching, and attempted to commit 

sodomy with the child. Given these circumstances, we find the 

adjudged sentence entirely appropriate. To grant relief at this 

point would be engaging in clemency, a prerogative reserved for 

the convening authority, and we decline to do so. United States 

v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394, 395-96 (C.M.A. 1988). 

 
3

Conclusion

The findings and the sentence as approved by the CA are 

affirmed. 

 For the Court 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court