UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Senior Airman PATRICK A. SHEA

United States Air Force

ACM S32225 (rem)

6 May 2016

Sentence adjudged 26 February 2014 by SPCM convened at Scott

Air Force Base, Illinois. Military Judge: Joshua E. Kastenberg (sitting 

alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months, 

reduction to E-1, and a reprimand.

Appellate Counsel for Appellant: Colonel Randall G. Snow and 

Major Isaac C. Kennen.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel Roberto 

Ramirez; Major Meredith L. Steer; and Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ALLRED, TELLER, and ZIMMERMAN

Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

UPON REMAND

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

TELLER, Senior Judge:

Appellant was convicted, in accordance with his pleas, by a military judge sitting 

alone, of one specification of disobeying a superior commissioned officer and two 

specifications of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 90 and 128, 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 890, 928. He was also convicted, contrary to his pleas, of one 
 2 ACM S32225 (rem)

specification of assault consummated by a battery and one specification of communicating 

a threat, in violation of Articles 128 and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 928, 934.

The court sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 4 months of 

confinement, forfeiture of $750.00 pay per month for 4 months, reduction to E-1, and a 

reprimand. The convening authority approved the bad-conduct discharge, confinement, 

reduction, and reprimand. The convening authority did not approve the adjudged 

forfeitures and waived the mandatory forfeitures under Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 

§ 858b, for the benefit of the Appellant’s dependent spouse and children.

On appeal, Appellant argued that the Government failed to disclose certain 

statements in the victim’s medical records that were favorable to the Defense. On 21 May 

2015, this court issued a decision setting aside the conviction concerning Specification 3 

of Charge I and reassessing the sentence. United States v. Shea, ACM S32225 (A.F. Ct. 

Crim. App. 21 May 2015) (unpub. op.). 

Appellant then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces. On 22 September 2015, our superior court granted review on the issue of whether 

this court erred in reassessing Appellant’s sentence to the sentence adjudged by the courtmartial (which included forfeitures of pay), rather than the sentence approved by the 

convening authority (which did not include forfeitures of pay). United States v. Shea, 75

M.J. 49 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (mem.). Our superior court affirmed our decision as to findings, 

reversed as to sentence, and remanded the case for sentence reassessment based on the 

affirmed findings of guilt. Id.

1

Background

The charges in this case arose out of an abusive relationship between Appellant and 

his wife. Appellant was arrested in November 2013 after striking his wife and brandishing 

a knife during an argument. For this incident, Appellant was found guilty of assault 

consummated by a battery and communicating a threat. 

In addition to the November 2013 incident, Appellant was also convicted of 

assaulting his wife twice during the fall of 2011.2 One specification alleged he struck her 

on the back with his hand. The other specification, which this court set aside, alleged

Appellant threw a baby bottle at his wife, causing a bruise on her hip. The trial counsel 

did not specifically reference this latter assault (Specification 3 of Charge I) at all in the 

sentencing argument. The Government instead emphasized the violent incident from 

 

1 On remand, Appellant filed a brief raising an additional issue asserting unreasonable post-trial delay. We do not 

consider that contention. “If [the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces] remands a case to [a service Court of 

Criminal Appeals], that court can only take action that conforms to the limitations and conditions prescribed by the 

remand.” United States v. Montesinos, 28 M.J. 38, 44 (C.M.A. 1989).

2 Appellant was acquitted of an additional assault alleged to have occurred during that period. 
 3 ACM S32225 (rem)

November 2013, as well as Appellant’s failure to improve his behavior after receiving 

nonjudicial punishment for other assaults on his wife earlier in 2013. 

Sentence Reassessment

Applying the analysis set forth in United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 

(C.A.A.F. 2013); United States v. Buber, 62 M.J. 476 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. 

Moffeit, 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006); and United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A.

1986), and carefully considering the entire record and the totality of the circumstances, we 

are confident that we can reassess the sentence. There has not been a change in the penalty 

landscape, the trial was before a military judge alone, Specification 3 of Charge I was not 

a significant factor in sentencing, and the remaining offenses are ones with which we have 

experience and familiarity. Therefore, we are confident that we can reliably determine 

that, even if Specification 3 of Charge I had been dismissed at trial, the military judge

would have imposed a sentence of at least a bad-conduct discharge, 4 months of 

confinement, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. 

Conclusion

Consistent with our prior opinion in this case and our superior court’s affirmance, 

the finding of guilty of Specification 3 of Charge I is set aside. See United States v. Shea, 

ACM S32225 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 21 May 2015) (unpub. op.); United States v. Shea, 75

M.J. 49 (C.A.A.F. 2015). All other findings are affirmed. 

The findings, as modified, and the sentence, as reassessed, are correct in law and 

fact and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. 

Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). They are, accordingly,

AFFIRMED. 

FOR THE COURT

LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court