UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700138

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

RODERICK A. CHAPMAN, JR.

Aviation Ordnanceman Third Class (E-4), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Ryan C. Mattina, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Kurt W. Siegal, JAGC, USN; 

Lieutenant Megan P. Marinos, JAGC, USN.

_________________________

Decided 26 September 2018

______________________

Before FULTON, HITESMAN, and RUSSELL, 

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.

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

A military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted the 

appellant, pursuant to his pleas and a pretrial agreement, of one specification 

of rape of a child, one specification of sexual assault of a child, one specification 

of violation of a lawful order, one specification of producing child pornography,

two specifications of possessing child pornography, and one specification of 

obstruction of justice, in violation of Articles 92, 120b, and 134, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 920b, and 934 (2016). The only 
United States v. Chapman, No. 201700138

2

sentence limitation in the pretrial agreement was an agreement by the 

Convening Authority (CA) to suspend all confinement in excess of thirty-eight 

years,1 The military judge sentenced the appellant to thirty-five years’

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

CA approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge,

ordered it executed.

In his sole assignement of error, the appellant contends that a sentence 

that extends to thirty-five years’ confinement is inappropriately severe.

After carefully considering the pleadings and the record of trial, we find no 

error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant and 

affirm the findings and sentence. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.

I. BACKGROUND

The appellant committed his offenses while stationed at Naval Air Station 

Whidbey Island. The appellant had anal and oral intercourse with his twelveyear-old stepdaughter, MD, on two separate occasions. On the first occasion, 

the appellant performed oral sex on MD. On the second occasion, the appellant

caused MD to become so intoxicated with alcohol that she was unable to walk 

straight. When MD wanted to go upstairs, the appellant carried her upstairs 

and anally raped her. Forensic testing revealed that MD had a blood alcohol 

concentration of .20 and semen in her anus. Additionally, the appellant was 

convicted of producing child pornography, possessing child pornography, and 

possessing animated images depicting child pornography. The appellant 

produced child pornography by taking numerous pictures of MD when her 

buttocks and vagina were exposed. Some of these photos also included the 

appellant’s penis. Photographs of victims identified through the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and other depictions of 

child pornography were found on the appellant’s electronic devices. Once in 

pre-trial confinement, the appellant attempted to obstruct justice by ordering 

his wife to destroy any child pornography she found. Finally, after the 

commanding officer issued a military protective order, the appellant used his 

wife to contact MD, disobeying a lawful order.

During sentencing testimony, MD’s guardian testified to the damage that 

MD has suffered from the appellant’s harm. She testified that MD is prone to 

outbursts and is withdrawn most of the time. An expert witness on behalf of 

the appellant, however, opined that the appellant had a low risk of recidivism

 

1 “Confinement: May be approved as adjudged. However, all confinement in 

excess of thirty-eight (38) years will be suspended for the period of confinement served 

plus twelve (12) months thereafter, at which time unless sooner vacated, the 

suspended portion will be remitted without further action.” App. Ex. VII.
United States v. Chapman, No. 201700138

3

given that this was his first offense and that he did not have deviant sexual 

interests. The trial defense counsel argued that the expert’s opinion of low risk

with the appellant’s willingness to admit guilt showed that a lower sentence 

should be adjudged. 

II. DISCUSSION

The appellant asserts that his sentence of thirty five years’ confinement is 

inappropriately severe. 

We review sentence appropriateness de novo. United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 

1, 2 (C.A.A.F. 2006). This court “may affirm only . . . the sentence or such part 

or amount of the sentence, as it . . . determines, on the basis of the entire record, 

should be approved.” Art. 66(c), UCMJ. The assessment of the appropriateness 

of a sentence requires the “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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The sentence must be 

fair and just for each accused. United States v. Lanford, 6 U.S.C.M.A. 371, 378 

(1955). A sentence is appropriate when justice is done and “the accused gets 

the punishment he deserves.” United States v. Key, 71 M.J. 566, 573 (N-M. Ct. 

Crim. App. 2012) (citing United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394, 395 (C.M.A. 1988).

The appellant urges us to weigh his length of confinement against his 

military awards, decorations, and his admission of guilt as part of his 

character. We note that the appellant served in the Navy for a total of eight 

years and received many awards and decorations. At sentencing, the appellant 

expressed a desire to continue serving his country. The appellant’s counsel

argued that the appellant was the product of a harsh upbringing and that he 

had made something of his life in the Navy.

When weighing the appellant’s character against his offenses we consider 

that the appellant raped and sexually assaulted his twelve-year-old

stepdaughther on two separate occasions. On one occasion, he plied his 

stepdaugher with alcohol—to the point of intoxication—before anally raping 

her. He also took pornographic photos depicting her genitalia and his abuse. 

In addition to his offenses involving his stepdaughter, the appellant also 

possessed numerous images of child pornography depiciting other victims, 

positively idenfied by NCMEC as children, as well as animated depictions of 

child pornography. The appellant’s remaining offenses were committed in an 

effort to either dispose of evidence against him or to influence witnesses 

against him. 

Having given individualized consideration to the appellant, the nature and 

seriousness of his offenses, his character, record of service, and all other 

matters contained in the record of trial, we find that the adjudged and 
United States v. Chapman, No. 201700138

4

approved sentence in this case was appropriate. Under the circumstances of 

this case, we are convinced that justice was done, and the appellant received 

the punishment he deserved. Healy, 26 M.J. at 395. 

III. CONCLUSION

The findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved by the CA, are 

affirmed.

FOR THE COURT

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court