Case Name: UNITED STATES v. Sergeant Jimmy C. DAVIS, FR [ XXX-XX-XXXX ] United States Air Force
Court: United States Air Force Court of Military Review
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-05-07
Citations: 13 M.J. 671
Docket Number: ACM S25426
Parties: UNITED STATES v. Sergeant Jimmy C. DAVIS, FR [ XXX-XX-XXXX ] United States Air Force.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Military Justice Reporter
Volume: 13
Pages: 671–675

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. Sergeant Jimmy C. DAVIS, FR [ XXX-XX-XXXX ] United States Air Force.
ACM S25426.
U. S. Air Force Court of Military Review.
Sentence Adjudged 28 May 1981.
Decided 7 May 1982.
Appellate Counsel for the Accused: Colonel George R. Stevens and Captain J. Laurens Tulloek.
Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel James P. Porter and Major Michael J. Hoover.
Before HODGSON, POWELL, and MILLER Appellate Military Judges.

Opinion:
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Contrary to his pleas, the accused was convicted by a special court-martial, military judge alone, of selling marihuana and stealing United States property valued at over $100.00, in violation of Articles 134 and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934, 921. His sentence consists of a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for five months, forfeiture of $334.00 per month for five months, and reduction to airman basic.
We have examined the record of trial, the assignment of errors, and the Government's response thereto and have concluded that the findings are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused was committed. The defense assertion that the "warrantless" apprehension of the accused in his quarters violated the rule enunciated in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), is inapposite. Not only does the evidence of record support the military judge's conclusion that the apprehension occurred outside the accused's quarters, but no evidence was seized from within his quarters. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and sentence are
AFFIRMED.