Court Opinion

ID: 9964037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:01:53.719835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:08.605276
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before
WALKER, POND, and PARKER
Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Specialist WINSLOW STANLEY, JR.
United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20220618

Headquarters, Fort Stewart
Albert G. Courie III and Clay M. West, Military Judge
Colonel Tanasha N. Stinson, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Major Robert W. Rodriguez, JA; Captain Kevin T. Todorow, JA.

For Appellee: Colonel Jacqueline J. DeGaine, JA.

29 March 2024

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, in
accordance with his pleas, of one specification of attempted indecent viewing, one
specification of unlawful entry, and two specifications of an assimilated state charge
for “Peeping Tom,” in violation of Articles 80, 129, and 134, Uniform Code of
Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 929, and 934 [UCMJ]. The military judge
sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for a total of twelve
months, and reduction to the grade of E-1.

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues in his filing (by footnote) that the language “on one or more
occasion” should be stricken from Specification 2 of Charge I and Specification 2 of
Additional Charge I because the evidence presented at appellant’s guilty plea
supports only a single act occurring for these two specifications. We agree.
Pursuant to United States v. English, 79 M.J. 116, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2019), this court
may narrow the scope of appellant’s convictions to conduct we deem factually and
STANLEY—ARMY 20220618

logally sufficient. We therefore affirm only so much of the guilty finding of
Specification 2 of Charge I as follows:

In that [appellant], U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort
Stewart, Georgia, between on or about 1 November 2021,
and on or about 20 January 2022, attempt to, without legal
justification or lawful authorization knowingly and
wrongfully view the private area of Mrs. a

with onsent and under circumstances in which
Mrs. had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
For Specification 2 of Additional Charge I, we affirm so much of the guilty finding

as follows:

In that [appellant], U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort
Stewart, Georgia, between on or about 1 February 2022,

and on 17 , unlawfully enter the barracks room
of Sergeant to wit: Building Room i.
CONCLUSION

*

The remaining findings of guilty and the sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

JAMES W. HERRING, JR.
Clerk of Court

* We have given full and fair consideration to the issues personally raised by
appellant before this Court pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431
(C.M.A. 1982), and determine they warrant neither discussion nor relief.