Court Opinion

ID: 4183380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-07-05 12:02:29.291201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.779462
License: Public Domain

U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS
             C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS
                         _________________________

                            No. 201700100
                         _________________________

                 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Appellee
                                     v.
                        SAMUEL T. BOYLES
               Hospitalman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy
                              Appellant
                       _________________________
 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Michael D. Zimmerman, USMC.
 Convening Authority: Commanding General, Training Command,
                          Quantico, VA.
   Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel
                    Michael E. Sayegh, USMC.
      For Appellant: Commander C. Eric Roper, JAGC, USN.
                For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.
                     _________________________

                          Decided 30 June 2017
                         _________________________

   Before CAMPBELL, F ULTON , and H UTCHISON , Appellate Military
                               Judges
                      _________________________

   After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening
authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).
The supplemental promulgating order will reflect that following the
merger of Specifications 2 and 5 under Charge I, Specification 2 reads
as follows: In that Hospitalman Apprentice Samuel T. Boyles, U.S.
Navy Reserves, on active duty, did, at an unknown location, on or
about 10 January 2016, commit a lewd act upon D.M.S., a child who
had not attained the age of 16 years, to wit: intentionally
communicating indecent language to D.M.S., through communication
technology, and intentionally sending a digital image of an erect penis
to D.M.S. through communication technology with an intent to arouse
                 United States v. Boyles, No. 201700100

or gratify his sexual desire. United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538,
539 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998).

                             For the Court

                             R.H. TROIDL
                             Clerk of Court

                                   2