UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40060

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Juan A. MURILLO

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 22 September 2021

________________________

Military Judge: Bryon T. Gleisner (arraignment); Mark W. Milam

(trial).

Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 13 January 2021 by GCM convened at 

Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Sentence entered by military judge on 

16 February 2021: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 12 months, 

reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Kirk W. Albertson, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Mary Ellen 

Payne, Esquire.

Before JOHNSON, KEY, and MEGINLEY, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted Appellant, in accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one specification of damage to personal property, in violation of Article 
United States v. Murillo, No. ACM 40060

2

109, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 909, and five specifications of assault consummated by battery of an intimate partner, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 928.* The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 12 months, reduction to 

the grade of E-1, and a reprimand. The convening authority approved Appellant’s sentence in its entirety.

This case was submitted for our review on its merits without assignment 

of error. However, in our review under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866, we 

identified an issue in the post-trial processing with the signed entry of judgment (EoJ), specifically related to Specification 5 of Charge II. This specification initially alleged that Appellant did, at or near Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, on or about 19 February 2020, “unlawfully place his hands on the throat 

of [PR], an intimate partner of the Appellant, and strangle her.” (Emphasis 

added). At issue is the word “hands.”

After arraignment, but before Appellant entered his pleas, trial counsel advised the military judge that the Government intended to strike the “s” from 

“hands,” to allege that Appellant “unlawfully place[d] his hand, singular.” (Emphasis added). This change was the result of negotiations between the Government and the Defense while discussing the plea agreement and stipulation of 

fact. Trial counsel believed this to be a major change. Unsure if this was in fact 

a major change, the military judge asked trial defense counsel, “If it [is] a major 

change, do you have any objection to waiving that major change, Captain 

[ER]?” Trial defense counsel had no objection to the change. The military judge 

also asked Appellant if he was “comfortable with what we’ve been discussing?”

Appellant responded he was. Trial counsel stated the change would be made 

at the next break in the court-martial. 

However, in our review of the record of trial we noted the pen-and-ink 

change to the charge sheet was never made, and the EoJ does not reflect that 

the “arraigned offense” stated “hands,” but that the “s” in “hands” was stricken 

after arraignment. Regardless of whether this was a major or minor change 

pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 603, the military judge asked

trial defense counsel if he had any objection to the change, and counsel waived

any objection to the change and immediately proceeded to entry of Appellant’s

pleas. Appellant’s providence inquiry on this specification also corresponds 

with this amendment and makes it clear that all parties proceeded through the 

court-martial relying upon this amendment. See United States v. Ballan, 71 

M.J. 28, 32 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (finding the appellant agreed to a major change in 

the charge sheet by not objecting to the change, proposing the change in his 

 

* References in this decision to the UCMJ and Rules for Courts-Martial are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).
United States v. Murillo, No. ACM 40060

3

pretrial agreement, explaining to the military judge why he was guilty before 

the plea was accepted, and by benefitting from the change, even though the 

charge sheet was not physically amended); see also United States v. Wareham, 

No. ACM 38820, 2016 CCA LEXIS 609, at *10–11 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 20 Oct. 

2016) (unpub. op.) (relying on Ballan to find the appellant’s “actions as agreeing to an amendment to the charge and specification even though the charge 

sheet itself was not physically amended”).

Although Appellant has not claimed any error or prejudice, we do find error 

with the EoJ. The EoJ should be corrected to properly reflect (1) that at arraignment, Specification 5 of Charge II alleged “hands” rather than “hand,” 

and (2) that the “s” from the word “hands” in Specification 5 of Charge II was 

stricken after arraignment. We direct the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial 

Judiciary, to detail a military judge to correct the EoJ to reflect this change

after arraignment, prior to completion of the final order under R.C.M. 1209(b) 

and Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice, Section 

14J (18 Jan. 2019). 

The findings and sentence entered are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 

59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the findings 

and the sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court