# United States Navy

**- Marine Corps**  **Court of Criminal Appeals**

_________________________ 

### U NITED STATES Appellee

v. Tyler J. GOODLIN Lance Corporal (E

- 3), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

_________________________ 

### N o. 201800159

_________________________ A ppeal from t he United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Decided: 22 January 2019

.

_________________________ M ilitary Judge: Major Terrance J. Reese, USMC. Approved Sentence: Reduction to pay grade E

- 1, 40 months’ confinement, 1 and a dishonorable discharge. Sen tence a djudged 6 M arch 2018 by a general court

- martial convened at Camp Lejeune , North Carolina , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. For Appellant: Commander Mark Takla, JAGC, USN. For Appellee: Lieutenant Timothy C. Ced er, JAGC, USN

.

_________________________ T his opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.2 (b)

.

1 The c onvening a uthority suspended confinement in excess of 15 months pursuant to a pretrial agreement.United States v. Goodlin , No. 201800159

2 _________________________ B efore FULTON , CRISFIELD , and HITESMAN , Appel late Military Judges.

PER CURIAM : A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted the appellant, pursuant to h is plea s , of a single specification of aggravated assault in violation of Article 128 , Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) , 10 U .S.C. § 92 8

. The appellant raises a single assignment of error contend ing that his adjudged sentence to a dishonorable discharge is inappropriately severe

. We disagree and affirm the findings and sentence

.


### I. B ACKGROUND The appellant was on the ground level in the designated smoking area near the barracks when he engaged in a verbal altercation with a Marine on the third deck balcony of the barracks. Challenges were made and a physical altercation became imminent when the Marine on the third deck began to mak e his way down to the smoking area to confront the appellant . Meanwhile, the appellant went to his room and obtained a three

- foot long, seven pound metal rod

. A Marine Corporal , who had witnessed the verbal altercation , observed that the appellant had the metal rod, and attempted to intervene and de

- escalate the situation. Without warning, the appellant swung the rod like a “baseball bat” 2 striking the Corporal in the face . The force of the blow br o k e the Corporal’s jaw into six pieces, knock ed out two of h is teeth, and resulted in significant scar ing a nd nerve damage to his face . The Corporal nearly died from complications associated with the injuries and had to be placed in a medically induced coma for several days . The Corporal under went extensive emergen cy lifesaving and reconstructive surgeries. During the present enc ing hearing, the appellant presented ev idence in extenuation and mitigatio n . Through witnesses and his own unsworn statement, the appellant focused on his character for peacefulness and his experience of being beaten up in high school. The trial counsel presented evidence focusing on the extent of the injuries to the victim

.

2 Prosecution Exhibit 1 at 2.United States v. Goodlin , No. 201800159

3 

### II. D ISCUSSION
We “may affirm only such finding of guilty and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence , as [we] find [] correct in law and fact and determine [] , on the basis of the entire record, should be approved.” Article 66(c), UCMJ

. “Sentence appropriateness involves the judicial function of assuring that justice is done and that the accused gets the punishment he deserves.” United States v. Healy , 26 M.J. 394, 395 (C.M.A. 1988). This requires our “ 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). In making this assessment, we analyze the record as a whole. Healy , 26 M.J. at 395. Despite our significant discretion in determining sentence appropriateness, we mus t remain mindful that we may not engage in acts of clemency. United States v. Nerad , 69 M.J. 138, 146 (C.A.A.F. 2010). The appellant had no disciplinary issues prior to the incident that resulted in his court

- martial. However, the level of violence with w hich he attacked

a fellow Marine who was attempting to de

- escalate the situation far outweighs his otherwise good service record and character for peacefulness

. Reviewing the nature and seriousness of the offense and the character of the offender we are sa tisfied that the appellant’s sentence is appropriate.



### III. C ONCLUSION We are convinced that the findings and the sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant was committed. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ. The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.
FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court