UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, J.R. MCFARLANE, D.A. NORKIN

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DEANNA M. HAINS

INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN THIRD CLASS (E-4), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201300477

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 17 September 2013.

Military Judge: CDR Lewis T. Booker, Jr., JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Naval Base Kitsap, 

Bremerton, WA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LT Ryan Aiken, JAGC, 

USN.

For Appellant: CDR Sabatino F. Leo, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

31 July 2014

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT 

---------------------------------------------------

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 special court-martial 

convicted the appellant, pursuant to her pleas, of one 

specification of conspiracy, one specification of making a false 

official statement, and four specifications of wrongful 

appropriation, in violation of Articles 81, 107, and 121,

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 907, and
2

921. The appellant was sentenced to confinement for three 

months, a fine of $400.00, and a bad-conduct discharge. The 

convening authority (CA) approved the adjudged confinement and 

bad-conduct discharge, but suspended all confinement in excess 

of 60 days.1 

The appellant’s case was submitted to this court without 

assignment of error. Upon review, we find that corrective 

action is necessary, which we will take in our decretal 

paragraph. Following our corrective action, we conclude that 

the findings are correct in law and fact and that no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the 

appellant remains. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.

Wrongful Appropriation of Multiple Items

Although not raised as error by the appellant, we find that 

the facts underlying Specifications 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Charge III 

support only a single specification of wrongful appropriation. 

While these specifications allege that the appellant wrongfully 

appropriated P.R.’s property on various dates, the providence 

inquiry and stipulation of fact make it clear that the appellant 

wrongfully took each charged item of P.R.’s property from his 

residence during a single visit on or about 3 July 2013.2

 

The Manual for Courts-Martial specifically provides that 

“[w]hen a larceny of several articles is committed at 

substantially the same time and place, it is a single larceny . 

. . .” MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2012 ed.), Part IV, ¶ 

46c(1)(h)(ii); see also United States v. Harris, 53 M.J. 514, 

 

1 The parties entered a pretrial agreement that would have also required the 

CA to suspend the bad-conduct discharge. However, the appellant breached 

this agreement and the CA subsequently withdrew. Thereafter, the parties 

reached a post-trial agreement in which the appellant waived her right to a

RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 1109, MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2012 ed.)

hearing in exchange for the CA’s agreement to disapprove the fine, suspend 

all confinement in excess of 60 days, and refrain from referring additional 

charges to trial. 

2 The dates in these specifications appear tied to occasions when the 

appellant later placed in item in “hock” at a local pawnshop. While the 

dates might accurately reflect those transactions, we find that the taking 

for purposes of Article 121, UCMJ, occurred when the appellant deprived the 

owner, P.R., of his property on or about 3 July 2013.
3

522 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2000), aff'd, 55 M.J. 433 (C.A.A.F. 2001); 

United States v. Lepresti, 52 M.J. 644, 653, (N.M.Ct.Crim.App 

1999). Additionally, this court has held that multiple, 

contemporaneous wrongful appropriations are to be treated in the 

same manner, notwithstanding the absence of any similar policy 

guidance pertaining to wrongful appropriation in the Manual for 

Courts-Martial. United States v. Benavides, No. 9901675, 2000 

CCA LEXIS 252, unpublished op. (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 12 Oct 2000). 

Accordingly, we will provide relief, in the form of 

consolidation, in our decretal paragraph.

Conclusion

Specifications 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Charge III are hereby 

consolidated into a single Specification to read as follows: 

Specification 3: In that Information Systems 

Technician Third Class Deanna M. Hains, U.S. Navy, 

Naval Base Kitsap, on active duty, did at or near 

Silverdale, Washington, on or about 3 July 2013, 

wrongfully appropriate a Samsung television, two Vizio 

DVD players, a Vizio television, and a Hewlett Packard 

printer, of a value of more than $500.00, the property 

of Aviation Ordnanceman First Class [PR], U.S. Navy.

With this modification, we affirm the findings.3

 Based upon 

our action on the findings, we have reassessed the sentence 

under the principles contained in United States v. Moffeit, 63 

M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006). We conclude that the adjudged sentence

for the remaining offenses would have been at least the same as 

that adjudged by the military judge and approved by the CA. 

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence as approved by the CA.

For the Court

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court

 

3 We need not dismiss those specifications which are incorporated into 

another specification. United States v. Sorrell, 23 M.J. 122, 122 n.1 

(C.M.A. 1986).