This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

MONAHAN, STEPHENS, and DEERWESTER

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

Rodolfo M. GONZALEZ

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201900281

Decided: 2 March 2021

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge:

Glen R. Hines, Jr.

Sentence adjudged 13 June 2019 by a special court-martial convened 

at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge 

sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement for 180 

days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander Daniel J. McCoy, JAGC, USN

For Appellee: 

Major Kyle D. Meeder, USMC

Judge DEERWESTER delivered the opinion of the Court, in which 

Chief Judge MONAHAN and Senior Judge STEPHENS joined.

_________________________
United States v. Gonzalez, NMCCA No. 201900281

Opinion of the Court

2

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent but 

may be cited as persuasive authority under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________

DEERWESTER, Judge:

Appellant was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, of four specifications of 

orders violations, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

[UCMJ]; one specification of use of a controlled substance in violation of 

Article 112a, UCMJ; five specifications of assault consummated by a battery,

in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; and one specification each of communicating a threat and obstruction of justice, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 912a, 928, 934.

Appellant asserts three assignments of error: (1) the Court should disapprove guilty findings for five specifications for which there was no factual 

inquiry and one specification for which the factual inquiry was inadequate;

(2) the Court should disapprove findings that are not recorded in the Entry of 

Judgment; and (3) the Court should refuse to accept for appellate review a 

record that is not certified by a detailed court reporter or verified by either of 

the military judges who participated in the proceedings.

I. DISCUSSION

Appellant asserts that the military judge failed to conduct a proper providence inquiry for multiple specifications prior to finding him guilty. He 

further asserts that the record as transcribed and certified was so poor as to 

render appellate review impossible. Finally, he asserts that the Entry of 

Judgment did not contain findings of several specifications to which he 

pleaded guilty, which should result in this Court setting aside those 

convictions not found in the entry of judgment. 

The record of trial originally submitted to the Court for review contained 

an incomplete, incorrect transcript of the proceedings. The transcribed 

portions for approximately 41 minutes of the proceedings were missing,

including the providence inquiry for the majority of the specifications of 

which Appellant was convicted. This error was not corrected at certification 

by the military judge, nor addressed by either appellate defense counsel or 

appellate government counsel, who both submitted extensive pleadings under 

the assumption that the providence inquiry conducted by the military judge 

was incomplete. 
United States v. Gonzalez, NMCCA No. 201900281

Opinion of the Court

3

The record of trial did, however, contain the entire audio recording, including the entire providence inquiry for all charges and specifications to 

which Appellant pleaded and was found guilty, as required under Rule for 

Courts Martial [R.C.M.] 1112(b)(1).

The Court ordered the Government to provide a complete and correct 

transcript pursuant to R.C.M. 1114(a)(1), as well as the entire Entry of 

Judgment. Those documents were received by the Court on 24 November 

2020. The Court granted appellate defense counsel an additional 30 days to 

provide supplemental briefing, which he declined.

II. CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of Appellant’s assigned error, the record of 

trial, and the parties’ submissions, we conclude the findings and sentence are 

correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s 

substantial rights occurred. UCMJ arts. 59, 66. Accordingly, the findings and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Chief Judge MONAHAN and Senior Judge STEPHENS concur.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court