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. 20190028 1

Decided: 2 M arch 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: C

ommander 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. 20190028 1 Opinion of the Court

2 This opinion does n ot serve as binding precedent b ut may be cited as persuasive authority under

NMCCA Ru le of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________
DEERWESTER, Judge : Appellant was convic ted, pursuant to his pleas , of four specification s of orders violations , in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ] ; one specification of us e 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 Art icle 134 , UCMJ
, 10 U

. S

. C

. § § 892 , 912a, 928, 934

. Appellant asserts t hree assignments of error: (1) the C ourt 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 C ourt should disapprove findings that are not recorded in the Entry of Judgment; and (3) the C ourt 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 part icipated in the proceedings.



### I. D ISCUSSION
Appellant asserts that the military judge failed to conduct a proper providenc e inquiry for multiple specifications prior to finding him guilty. He further asserts that the record as transcribed and certified was s o 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 ple ade d guilty, which should result in this C ourt setting aside those convictions not found in th e entry of judgment.
The record of trial originally submitted to the Court for review contained an incomplete, incorrect transcript of the proceedings

. T he transcribed portions for approximately 41 minutes of the proceedings were missing , including the p rovidenc e inquiry for the majority of the specifications of which A ppellant was convicted. This error was not corrected at certification by the m ilitary j udge, nor addressed by either appellate defense counsel or appellate government counsel , who both submitted extensive pleadings under the assumption that the providenc e inquiry conducted by the military judge was incomplete

.United States v. Gonzalez
, NMCCA No. 20190028 1 Opinion of the Court

3 The record of trial did
, however , contain the entire audio recording , including the entire providenc e inquiry for all charges an d specifications to which Appellant pleaded and was found guilty , as required under Rule for Courts Martial [ R

. C

. M .] 1112(b)(1).
T he C ourt ordered the G overnment to provide a complete and correct transcript pursuant to R

. C

. M

. 1114(a)(1), as well as the ent ire Entry of Judgment . Those documents were received by the Court on 24 November 2020. Th e C ourt granted appellate defense counsel an additional 30 days to provide supplemental briefing, which h e declined.



### II. C ONCLUSION
After careful consideration of Appell ant’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 J udge MONAHAN and Senior Judge STEPHENS concur

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. D REW, JR. Clerk of Court