UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

K.J. BRUBAKER, M.C. HOLIFIELD, A.Y. MARKS

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

AARON C. WILSON

CORPORAL (E-4), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201500017

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 26 September 2014.

Military Judge: LtCol L.J. Francis, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air 

Station Yuma, Yuma, AZ.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Maj G.T. Funk, USMC.

For Appellant: Maj Jeffrey S. Stephens, USMCR.

For Appellee: CDR C. Eric Roper, JAGC, USN; LT Ann E. 

Dingle, JAGC, USN.

14 July 2015

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

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 general court-martial, found 

the appellant guilty, pursuant to his pleas, of one 

specification each of conspiracy, making a false official 

statement, and destroying non-military property, and two 

specifications of larceny, in violation of Articles 81, 107, 

109, and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 
2

§§ 881, 907, 909, and 921. The adjudged sentence included two 

years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a badconduct discharge. The convening authority (CA) approved the 

sentence as adjudged. However, pursuant to a pretrial 

agreement, the CA suspended all confinement in excess of 365 

days. 

On appeal, the appellant alleges: (1) that his sentence is 

inappropriately severe and, (2) that the staff judge advocate’s 

recommendation (SJAR) and CA’s action erroneously omitted 

reference to two companion cases. After careful examination of 

the record of trial and the pleadings of the parties, we 

disagree. The findings and sentence are correct in law and 

fact, and we find no error materially prejudicial to the 

substantial rights of the appellant. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), 

UCMJ. 

Background

A motorcyclist, the appellant began riding with the Real 

Riders Motorcycle Club near Camp Pendleton, California, in May 

2010 and joined the club in May of 2011 after returning from a 

six-month deployment to Afghanistan. Sergeant (Sgt) Jeremiah 

Ledesma was also a member of the Real Riders, and Lance Corporal 

(LCpl) Jovell Nieves joined the club in early 2012. 

In July 2012, the appellant learned from Sgt Ledesma and 

LCpl Nieves that they had stolen a blue 2007 Yamaha R6 

motorcycle from a parking lot aboard Camp Pendleton to supply 

parts for a damaged Yamaha R6 Sgt Ledesma had recently bought. 

The appellant failed to report Sgt Ledesma’s and LCpl Nieves’ 

theft and began to help plan the theft of a second motorcycle. 

LCpl Nieves solicited the appellant’s and Sgt Ledesma’s 

assistance in locating and stealing a motorcycle as a source of 

parts for his new motorcycle. After LCpl Nieves found a 

motorcycle similar to his own parked near his barracks, the 

appellant, Sgt Ledesma, and LCpl Nieves gathered and caravanned 

to the barracks parking lot after dark. The appellant and LCpl 

Nieves lifted the motorcycle from its parking spot into the bed 

of Sgt Ledesma’s pickup truck and strapped it down. That night, 

the appellant and LCpl Nieves began removing parts from the 

stolen motorcycle in Sgt Ledesma’s garage. The next day, the 

appellant returned to Sgt Ledesma’s garage and coached LCpl 

Nieves as to how to remove parts and in what order, taking the 

stolen motorcycle down to its frame. Then the appellant 

accompanied LCpl Nieves to a motorcycle retail and repair shop 

to sell unwanted parts. 
3

In August, the appellant, Sgt Ledesma, and LCpl Nieves 

surveyed the parking lots aboard Camp Pendleton, looking for 

motorcycles similar to their own. The appellant approached 

covered motorcycles on foot and raised the covers to determine 

their models. On 13 August 2012, LCpl Nieves texted the 

appellant, inquiring as to the location of a Yamaha R6 with GYTR1

they had spotted. The appellant responded, “It was behind the 

gas station. Mainside I wanna say it was black.”2 Two nights 

later, Sgt Ledesma and LCpl Nieves stole that motorcycle from a 

barracks parking lot and took it to a storage unit they rented 

in town. The appellant was not with Sgt Ledesma and LCpl Nieves 

for the theft, and he later chided them for stealing the 

motorcycle without him.3

The motorcycle Sgt Ledesma and LCpl Nieves stole on 15 

August 2012 was equipped with a LoJack anti-theft device, and 

Sgt Ledesma and LCpl Nieves were soon arrested. The appellant 

transferred to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona on 

14 September 2012, but he was called back to the Camp Pendleton 

Criminal Investigation Division on 1 October 2012 for an 

interview. The appellant went into great detail, inculpating 

his two co-conspirators while attempting to portray himself as a 

disapproving observer. The Marine Corps criminal investigator 

asked the appellant, “[a]re you involved in the theft of 

motorcycles . . . ?” The appellant replied, “[n]o.”4

 The 

appellant initialed next to his false response to Agent Hansen’s 

question and swore to the truthfulness of his statement. 

There was no evidence that the appellant personally profited 

from the theft of the motorcycles. He received neither 

motorcycle parts nor cash from the sale of motorcycle parts. 

Sentence Severity

The appellant argues that his sentence to a bad-conduct 

discharge and confinement for two years, even with the second 

year of confinement suspended per the pretrial agreement, was 

inappropriately severe given his limited role in the conspiracy 

 

1 GYTR is an aftermarket exhaust system for motorcycles. See Prosecution 

Exhibit 10 at 4. 

2 PE 12 at 10. 

3 Hours after the 15 August 2012 theft, appellant learned about it from LCpl 

Nieves. The appellant reacted with the following text to LCpl Nieves: “Y’all 

. . . . went shoppin without me.” Id. at 12.

4 Id. at 7.
4

to steal, dismantle, and sell motorcycles and his eight years of 

service in the Marine Corps. We disagree. 

In accordance with Article 66(c), UCMJ, this court “may 

affirm only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such 

part or amount of the sentence, as it finds correct in law and 

fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should 

be approved.” “Sentence appropriateness involves the judicial 

function of assuring that justice is done and that the accused 

gets the punishment he deserves.” United States v. Healy, 26 

M.J. 394, 395 (C.M.A. 1988). That analysis requires 

“individualized consideration of the particular accused on the 

basis of the nature and seriousness of the offense and character 

of the offender.” United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 

(C.M.A. 1982) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Factors include “the circumstances surrounding the offense, [the 

accused's] acceptance or lack of acceptance of responsibility 

for his offense, and his prior record.” United States v. 

Aurich, 31 M.J. 95, 97 n.* (C.M.A. 1990). 

We have reviewed the entire record, and we are mindful that 

the appellant was a successful Marine for six years, including 

two deployments to Afghanistan, before the events at issue. We 

also considered the favorable testimony of his supervisor at the 

barracks at MCAS Yuma. Although he initially lied to 

investigators about his lack of involvement in motorcycle theft, 

the appellant eventually took responsibility for his actions 

before the military judge and the CA. 

The appellant’s failure to reap any financial benefit from 

this conspiracy does little to mitigate his deliberate and 

sustained misconduct over the course of at least a month. When 

the appellant learned that two members of his motorcycle club 

had stolen a fellow Marine’s motorcycle, he reacted without 

concern or sympathy for that first victim. Instead, the 

appellant used his Marine Corps leadership experience to mentor 

a junior Marine, LCpl Nieves, in the identification, theft, 

dismantling, poaching, and sale of parts from other Marines’ 

motorcycles. After actively participating in the theft of a 

second motorcycle, the appellant expressed disappointment when 

he realized he had missed the theft of the third motorcycle. 

The appellant’s course of misconduct continued far too long 

to be characterized as a momentary lapse in judgment. 

Furthermore, while awaiting the consequences of his misconduct 

in Camp Pendleton, the appellant received nonjudicial punishment 
5

for driving aboard MCAS Yuma with a blood alcohol content of 

.19. 

Each of the five specifications to which the appellant 

pleaded guilty carried a maximum sentence of five years. The 

appellant is benefiting from a pretrial agreement and serving 

one year of confinement for all five of those specifications. 

Considering the facts of the case and the appellant’s record, as 

well as the mitigating factors presented, the sentence is not 

inappropriate. 

Failure to Note Companion Cases

The appellant alleges CA error in that the SJAR and CA’s 

action both fail to mention two companion cases of the 

appellant’s co-conspirators. 

Section 0151a(5) of the Manual of the Judge Advocate 

General, Judge Advocate General Instruction 5800.7F (26 June 

2012), directs CAs who order separate trials of companion cases 

to indicate such an order in the action on the record in each 

companion case. This court has interpreted the requirement to 

apply only to courts-martial convened by the same CA. United 

States v. Ortiz, 52 M.J. 739, 741 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2000) 

(citing United States v. Swan, 43 M.J. 788, 790 

(N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1995)). The burden to demonstrate that the 

same CA convened the courts-martial that tried potential 

companion cases lies with the appellant. Id. 

The commanding officer of MCAS Yuma was the CA in this 

case, as appellant was assigned to MCAS Yuma at the time of 

preferral of charges. The conduct in this case did not occur at 

MCAS Yuma, and neither co-conspirator was assigned to MCAS Yuma. 

Absent evidence from the appellant that the commanding officer 

of MCAS Yuma convened the courts-martial against Sgt Ledesma and 

LCpl Nieves, we reject this second assignment of error. 
6

Conclusion

The findings and the sentence as approved by the CA are 

affirmed.

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court