UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201300341

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER A. QUICK

Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Chris Thielemann, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft 

Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel K.C. 

Harris, USMC. 

For Appellant: Major David A. Peters, USMCR.

For Appellee: Captain Brian L. Farrell, USMC; Captain Sean M. 

Monks, USMC.

_________________________

Decided 30 March 2018

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, FULTON, and SAYEGH, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent but may be cited as 

persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 

18.2.

_________________________

HUTCHISON, Senior Judge:

A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial

convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of conspiring to distribute an 

indecent visual recording, wrongfully viewing an indecent visual recording, 

and indecent conduct in violation of Articles 81, 120c, and 134, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 920c, and 934 (2012). The 
United States v. Quick, No. 201300341

2

convening authority (CA) approved the adjudged sentence of six months’ 

confinement, reduction to paygrade E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge. In a 

previous published opinion, we set aside and dismissed the appellant’s 

conviction for wrongfully viewing an indecent recording but affirmed the 

appellant’s remaining convictions. United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 517 (N-M. 

Ct. Crim. App. 2014), aff’d, 74 M.J. 332 (C.A.A.F. 2015). We also set aside the

sentence and authorized a new sentencing hearing.

I. BACKGROUND

Following remand, the CA issued a letter to the Trial Counsel in which he 

withdrew and dismissed the remanded charges and stated that he had 

approved the appellant’s Request for Separation in Lieu of Trial.

1 When the 

case returned to us we specified two issues: 1) Did the CA have the authority 

to withdraw and dismiss the affirmed findings in this case; and 2) if the CA 

exceeded his authority, what is the appropriate relief?

II. DISCUSSION

The appellant and the government agree that the CA’s purported 

withdrawal and dismissal of affirmed findings exceeded the scope of his 

mandate. We also agree. 

The CA “loses jurisdiction of the case once he has published his action[.]” 

United States v. Montesinos, 28 M.J. 38, 42 (C.M.A. 1989). “At that point, the 

‘only further contact that the convening authority has with the case occurs in 

the event of a remand[.]’” United States v. Carter, 76 M.J. 293, 295-96 

(C.A.A.F. 2017) (quoting Montesinos, 28 M.J. at 42). But, “when acting on 

remand, a convening authority may still only take action that conforms to the 

limitations and conditions prescribed by the remand.” Id. at 296 (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

Here the CA was authorized to conduct a rehearing on the sentence, 

nothing more. The appellant’s criminal convictions—affirmed by this court—

were final and the CA had no authority to dismiss them. As a result, the CA’s 

action purporting to withdraw and dismiss the affirmed findings of guilty is 

invalid and therefore, set aside. Thus, the findings of guilty to conspiring to 

distribute an indecent visual recording and indecent conduct in violation of 

Articles 81 and 134, UCMJ, as originally affirmed in our previous opinion, 

remain.

Where excessive action by a CA impacts affirmed findings, appellate 

courts have affirmed sentences of no punishment where doing so is consistent 

 

1 CG, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing ltr 5814 Ser SJA of 17 Mar 16. On 30 July 2016, 

the appellant was discharged “Under Other than Honorable Conditions.” DD Form 

214.
United States v. Quick, No. 201300341

3

with the entire record and is in the interests of justice. United States v. Sala, 

30 M.J. 813, 815 (A.C.M.R. 1990) (“Rather than protract the litigation in this 

matter, we will, in the interest of justice . . . affirm a sentence of no 

punishment.”) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Montesinos, 24 M.J. 

682, 686 (A.C.M.R. 1987), aff’d 28 M.J. 38 (C.M.A. 1989) (voiding CA’s 

remedial action purporting to dismiss affirmed findings and affirming a 

sentence of no punishment following the appellant’s administrative 

discharge).

We can infer from the record that the CA, by agreeing to administratively 

separate the appellant, did not desire to approve any punishment. 

Accordingly, we conclude a sentence of no punishment is consistent with the 

record and the interests of justice.2

III. CONCLUSION

The findings of guilty to Charge I and its specification and to Charge IV 

and its specification having already been affirmed, a sentence of no 

punishment is affirmed. 

Judge FULTON and Judge SAYEGH concur.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court 

 

2 Both the appellant and the government agree that affirming a sentence of no 

punishment is appropriate in this case. See Appellant’s Brief of 21 Feb 2018 at 8; 

Appellee’s Brief of 6 Mar 2018 at 5.