Court Opinion

ID: 9911945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 15:01:22.149893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:49.354282
License: Public Domain

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

                                   Before
                       HOLIFIELD, KIRKBY, and DALY
                          Appellate Military Judges

                            _________________________

                              UNITED STATES
                                  Appellee

                                         v.

                         Randolph T. HOPE
                  Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps
                                Appellant

                                No. 202300125

                            _________________________

                           Decided: 20 December 2023

      Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

                                  Military Judge:
                                   Yong J. Lee

   Sentence adjudged 3 March 2023 by a special court-martial convened
   at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California, consisting of a mili-
   tary judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction
   to E-1, confinement for six months, forfeiture of $1,278.00 pay per
   month for six months, and a bad-conduct discharge. 1

   1 We note that the military judge’s initial announcement regarding adjudged for-

feiture of pay was inconsistent with Rule for Courts-Martial [R.C.M.] 1003(b)(2) and
that the subsequent correction was discussed via email rather than at a post-trial Ar-
ticle 39(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ] session, as prescribed in R.C.M.
1104(b)(1)(C). However, we find no prejudice to Appellant.
                United States v. Hope, NMCCA No. 202300125
                            Opinion of the Court

                            For Appellant:
            Lieutenant Commander Doug Ottenwess, JAGC, USN

                          _________________________

       This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under
             NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

                          _________________________

PER CURIAM:
    After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law
and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial
rights occurred. 2
   The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                                 FOR THE COURT:

                                 MARK K. JAMISON
                                 Clerk of Court

   2 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

                                         2