## UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before BURTON, RODRIGUEZ, and FLEMING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Sergeant TERRACE L. SOLOMON United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20160456 Headquarters, United States ArmyAlaska Sean F. Mangan, Military Judge Colonel Erik L. Christiansen, StaffJudge Advocate

For Appellant: Captain Catherine E. Godfrey, JA; Zachary Spilman, Esquire (on briefand replybrief) For Appellee: Colonel Steven P. Haight, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Wayne H. Williams, JA; Major Hannah E. Kaufman, JA; Captain Christopher T. Leighton, JA (on brief).

10 March 2020

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON FURTHER REVIEW
This opinion is issuedasan unpublishedopinion and, assuch, does notserve asprecedent. FLEMING, Judge: In our second review ofappellant's case under Article 66, UCMJ, we dismiss an additional specification and reassess his sentence.1

1An enlisted panel sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant contrary to his pleas oftwo specifications ofviolating an order from a superior commissioned officer, two specifications ofinsubordinate conduct towards a superior noncommissioned officer, one specification ofassault consummated by a battery ofa child under the age ofsixteen, three specifications ofassault consummatedby a battery, one specification ofsimple assault, and one specification ofusing language
(continued

...)SOLOMON-ARMY 20160456 Appellantraised eight assignments oferror in our first review under Article 66, UCMJ. 2 See United States v. Solomon, ARMY 20160456, 2019 CCA LEXIS 149 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 3 Apr. 10) (mem. op.). We issued a lengthymemorandum opinion affirming, dismissing, and setting aside various specifications and setting aside the sentence. Id. at * 36-37 We remanded the case and provided the same or a different convening authority with two options: "1) order a rehearing on Specification 2 ofCharge III and the sentence; or 2) dismiss Specification 2 of Charge III and reassess the sentence, affirming no more than a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture ofall pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade ofE-1." 3 Id. at *37. As to the second option, we stated: In reassessing the sentence, we are satisfied that the sentence adjudged on the offenses we affirm would have been at least a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twenty-fourmonths, forfeiture ofall pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade ofE-1. See United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305, 308 (C.M.A. 1986); United States v. (

... continued) that was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was ofa nature to bring discredit on the armed forces, in violation ofArticles 90, 91, 128, and 134, Uniform Code ofMilitaryJustice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 890,891,928,934 [UCMJ]. Thepanel sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for twelve years, total forfeiture ofall pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade ofE-1. The convening authority disapproved the findings ofguilty to one ofthe specifications of assault consummated by a battery and the specification ofusing language that was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was ofa nature to bring discredit on the armed forces. The convening authority approved only so much ofthe sentence extending to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for three years, total forfeiture ofall pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade ofE-1. The convening authority also credited appellant with 243 days ofpretrial confinement credit against the sentence to confinement.

2We determined two errors merited discussion; one ofwhich merited relief. We determined one ofthe two matters filed by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), merited relief. Solomon, 2019 CCA LEXIS 149, at *3, 37.

3 As to any sentence to confinement, appellant was creditedwith the 243 days of pretrial confinement credit originally granted at trial and with an additional 86 days ofconfinement credit for the government's noncompliance with R.C.M. 305. Id. at *37.

2SOLOMON-ARMY 20160456 Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11, 15-16 (C.A.A.F. 2013). This reassessment, beingboth appropriate and purging the record as it stands oferror, does not otherwise limit the sentence that maybe adjudged at a rehearing. See UCMJ, art. 63. 

### Id. at *37 n. 23. In September 2019, the convening authority selected our second optionby dismissing Specification 2 ofCharge III, reassessing the sentence, and approving a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twenty-fourmonths, forfeiture ofall pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade ofE-1. Appellant's case is again beforeus for review pursuantto Article 66, UCMJ. Appellantrenews seven assignments oferrorpreviouslyraised during our initial review and asserts three new assignments oferror. One ofappellant's new assignments oferrormerits discussion but no relief.4 LAW AND DISCUSSION Appellant now asserts the convening authoritywas not authorized to reassess his sentence after our court set the sentence aside. We pause to note that appellant did not file a request for reconsideration regarding this alleged legal error with our court after our issuance ofour memorandum opinion. Appellant did, however, in his Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105 submissionto the convening authority assert "[t]he Army court is wrong." 5 Despite his assertion oferror, appellant urged the convening authorityto approve a sentence ofno punishment

- a defense request the convening authority denied. Having now notified our court ofthis alleged error, we will assume, without· deciding, that our court erred in granting the convening authority the abilityto

4 We have given full and fair consideration to all ofappellant's other assignments of error and the matterraised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and find they merit neither discussion nor relief.

5 Pursuantto R.C.M. 1105, after a sentence is adjudged, an accused may submit matters to the convening authority "[t]hatmayreasonably tend to affect the convening authority's decision whether to disapprove any findings ofguilty or to approve the sentence, except as maybe limited byR.C.M. l 107(b)(3)(C)." An accused's submissions may include "[a]llegations oferrors affecting the legality of the findings or sentence." R.C.M. l 105(b)(2)(A).

3SOLOMON-ARMY20160456

reassess appellant's sentence after we set the sentence aside. Even ifwe erred, this court then possessed and still possesses the authority to reassess appellant's sentence. See Winckelmann, 73 M.J. at 15 (courts ofcriminal appeals have "broad discretion" in deciding to reassess a sentence to cure error as well as in arriving at the reassessed sentence). We exercised this authority in our memorandum opinion when we stated "in reassessing the sentence" that appellant's sentence "would have been at least a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twenty-fourmonths, forfeiture ofall pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade ofE-1." Solomon, 2019 CCA LEXIS 149, at *37 n. 23. We have again closelyreviewed appellant's record oftrial and are satisfied that the sentence adjudged for the offenses we affirm would have been at least a badconduct discharge, confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture ofall pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade ofE-1. See Winckelmann, 73 M.J. at 15-16; Sales,22 M.J. at 308. This reassessment is both appropriate and purges the record as it stands oferror. See UCMJ, art. 63 CONCLUSION Specification 2 ofCharge III is DISMISSED. We reassess the sentence and affirm no more than a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture ofall pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade ofE-1. As to any sentence to confinement, appellant will be credited with the 243 days ofpretrial confinement credit originally granted at trial and with an additional 86 days of confinement credit for the government's noncompliance with R.C.M. 305. Senior Judge BURTON and Judge RODRIGUEZ concur. FOR THE COURT:

ChiefDeputy Clerk ofCourt

4