UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201400409

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

JOSHUA D. NEWLAN

Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Trial – Lieutenant Colonel L.J. Francis, USMC; 

Rehearing -Lieutenant Colonel Brian E. Kasprzyk, USMCR.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft 

Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel W. 

Lee, USMC.

For Appellant: Captain Daniel R. Douglass, USMC.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Kimberly Y. Rios, JAGC, USN;

Captain Sean M. Monks, USMC.

_________________________

Decided 12 March 2018

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, FULTON, and SAYEGH, 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: 

This case is before us a second time. In our previous opinion, we set aside 

the appellant’s conviction for sexual assault in violation of Article 120, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012), affirmed 

his conviction for adultery in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934 
United States v. Newlan, No. 201400409

2

(2012)1, set aside the sentence, and authorized a rehearing. United States v. 

Newlan, No. 201400409, 2016 CCA LEXIS 540 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 13 Sep 

2016). 

Prior to the rehearing the appellant and convening authority entered into 

a pretrial agreement resulting in the withdrawal of the sexual assault charge 

and referral of an Addional Charge alleging an assault consummated by 

battery in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 928 (2012).2 At the 

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

appellant, pursuant to his plea, of assault consummated by battery. For both 

the adultery conviction from his first trial and the assault conviction at the 

rehearing, the military judge sentenced the appellant to reduction to pay 

grade E-1 and nine months’ confinement. The convening authority approved 

the sentence as adjudged and ordered it executed.

In his sole assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the courtmartial promulgating order and report of results of trial do not accurately 

reflect his plea of not guilty at his first trial to Charge II and its sole 

specification, adultery. We agree. Reviewing under a harmless-error 

standard, we find that the error in the promulgating order “did not affect the 

appellant’s substantial rights, since no prejudice was alleged or is apparent.”

United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1989). 

However, an appellant is entitled to an official record that accurately reflects

the results of his proceedings. Id.

The findings and sentence are affirmed. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ. The 

supplemental promulgating order will reflect that the appellant was 

arraigned on Charge II and its sole specification on 25 October 2013; that he 

pleaded not guilty to both Charge II and its specification; that he was found 

guilty of that offense on 1 April 2014; and the findings as to that offense were 

affirmed by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on 13 

September 2016.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court 

 

1 This offense was reflected as the sole specification of Charge II on the charge 

sheet.

2 Appellate Exhibit I(R).