Before KISOR
, MIZER
, and HARRELL Appellate Military Judges

_________________________


### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Daniel L. JONES Naval Aircrewman (Mechanical) Airman (E

- 3 ), U.S. Navy Appellant

No. 20 2 300187

_________________________

Decided: 26 July 2024

Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge : Donald R. Ostrom

Sentence adjudged 15 May 2023 by a general court

- martial convened at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia , consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 16 months
, and a bad

- conduct discharge

. 1

For Appellant: Lieutenant Raymond E. Bilter, JAGC, USN

1 Appellant was credited with having served 163 days of pretrial confinement.U nited States v. Jones

, NMCCA No. 202300187 Opinion of the Court

2 For Appell ee: Lieutenant Lan T. Nguyen , JAGC, USN Lieutenant Commander James P. Wu Zhu

, JAGC, USN

_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under

NMCCA Ru le of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

____ _____________________

PER CURIAM : A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of aggravated assault and one specification of assault consummated by a battery
, each in violation of Article 128
, Uniform Code of Military Justice

. 2 Appellant asserts in his sole A ssignment of E rror that the Entry of Judgment fails to comply with Rule for Courts

- Martial 1111( b )(1)(A) because it does not correctly summarize each specificati on

. We disagree. The summaries of the specifications in the Entry of Judgment comply with the minimum requirements recently elucidated by this Court. 3
However, we note that the Entry of Judgment does not accurately reflect the disposition of the charges. The Entry of Judgment incorrectly states that the military judge found Appellant not guilty of those charges and specifications to which he pleaded not guilty. 4 In fact, the military judge entered findings only with respect to those charges and specification s to w hich Appellant pleaded guilty , and the G overnment withdrew and dismissed the remaining charges and specifications pursuant to a plea agreement . Alt hough we find no prejudice, Appellant is entitled to have court

- martial records that corre ctly reflect the content of his proceeding. 5 In accordance with Rule for Courts

- Martial

2 10 U.S.C. § 928

.

3 United States v. Wadaa , __ M.J. ___ No. 202300273, 2024 CCA LEXIS 148 at *6 (N

- M

. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 25, 2024).

4 We also note that the Statement of Trial Re sults reflects the same errors

.

5 United States v. Sutton , 81 M.J. 677 (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 2021) ; United States v. Crumpley , 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998)

.U nited States v. Jones

, NMCCA No. 202300187 Opinion of the Court

3 1111(c)(2), we modify the Entry of Judgment and direct that it be included in the record

. After careful consideration of the record and briefs of appellate counsel, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 6

T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

6 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.UNITED STATES



### v.

Daniel L. JONESNaval Aircrewman (Mechanical) Airman (E

- 3 ) U.S. Navy

Accused NMCCA NO. 202300187



### ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

As Modified on Appeal

26 July 2024

On 15 May 2023, t he Accused was tried at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, by general court

- martial consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Military Judge Donald R. Ostrom presid ed.



### FINDINGS The following are the Accused’s pleas and the Court’s finding to all offenses the convening authority referred to trial:
Charge I : Violation of Article 80 , Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. § 880

. Plea: Not G uilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismiss ed without prejudice to ripen into prejudice upon completion of appellate review

. Specification: Attempted kidnapping on or about 8 November 2022.

Plea: Not G uilty

. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice to ripen into prejudice upon completion of appellate review

. Charge II: Violation of Article 115 , Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 915

. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice to ripen into prejudice upon completion of appellate review

. Specification: Communicating a threat on or about 8 November 2022

. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice to ripen into prejudice upon completion of appellate review

.United States v. Jones , NMCCA No. 202300187 Modified Entry of Judgment

2 Charge II I : Violation of Article 128 , Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 928

. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification : Aggravated assault with the infliction of substantial bodily harm on or about 8 November 2022.

Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge : Violation of Article 128 , Uniform Code of Milit ary Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 928

. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification : Assault consummated by battery on or about 8 March 2023

. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.



### SENTENCE

On 15 May 2023, the military judge sentenced the Accused to the following:

Reduction to pay grade E

- 1.
Confinement for a total of 16 months, as follows:

For the Specification of Charge I II

: confinement for 16 months.

For the Specification of the Addition al Charge: confinement for 6 months.
The terms of confinement will run concurrently.
The Accused shall be credited with 163 days of confinement already served, to be deducted from the adjudged sentence to confinement.

A bad

- conduct discharge.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court