## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201400409

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### JOSHUA D. NEWLAN Corporal (E

- 4 )
, U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal f rom the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial J udiciary Military Judge: Trial

– Lieutenant Colonel L.J. Francis, USMC; Rehearing

- L ieutenant Col onel Brian E. Kasprzyk, USMC R

. Convening Authority: Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, M arine C orps A ir S tation Miramar, San Diego, California

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: L ieutenant Col onel W. Lee, USMC

. For Appellant: C aptain Daniel R. Douglass, USMC

. For Appellee: L ieutenant Kimberly Y. Rios , JAGC , USN ;

Captain Sean M. Monks, USMC.

_________

________________ Decided 1 2 March 2018

_________________________ Before H UTCHISON , F ULTON , and S AYEGH , 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 Jus tice (UCMJ) , 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012), affirmed his conviction for adultery in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934United States v. Newlan
, No . 201 4 00 409

2 (2012) 1 , set aside the sentence, and authorized a rehearing. United States v. Newlan , No. 201400409, 2016 CCA LEXIS 540 (N

- M. Ct. C rim

. 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 i n violation of Article 128, UCMJ , 10 U.S.C. § 928 (2012). 2 A t the rehearing, a military judge, sitting as a general court

- martial , convicted the appellant , pursuant to his plea, of assault consummated by battery . F or both the adultery conviction from his f irst trial and the assault conviction at the rehearing , t he military judge s entenced 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 a ssignment of error, the appellant asserts that the court

martial 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

. R eview ing un der 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). Howe ver, an appellant is entitled to an official record that accurately reflect s the results of his proceedings. Id.

T he findings and sentence are affirmed

. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ. T he supplemental promulgating order will reflect that the appellant was

ar raigned 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).