United States Navy-Marine Corps

Court of Criminal Appeals

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Tyler J. GOODLIN

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

Appellant

_________________________

No. 201800159

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Decided: 22 January 2019.

_________________________

Military Judge: Major Terrance J. Reese, USMC.

Approved Sentence: Reduction to pay grade E-1, 40 months’ 

confinement,1 and a dishonorable discharge. Sentence adjudged 6

March 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. Ceder, JAGC, USN.

_________________________

This 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 convening authority suspended confinement in excess of 15 months pursuant to a pretrial agreement. 
United States v. Goodlin, No. 201800159

2

_________________________

Before FULTON, CRISFIELD, and HITESMAN, 

Appellate Military Judges.

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of a single specification of aggravated assault in 

violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 

§ 928. The appellant raises a single assignment of error contending that his 

adjudged sentence to a dishonorable discharge is inappropriately severe. We 

disagree and affirm the findings and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

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 

make 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 broke the Corporal’s jaw into six pieces, knocked out two of his 

teeth, and resulted in significant scaring and 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 underwent extensive emergency lifesaving and reconstructive surgeries. 

During the presentencing hearing, the appellant presented evidence in 

extenuation and mitigation. 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. DISCUSSION

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 must 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 which 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 satisfied that the appellant’s sentence is appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION

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