Court Opinion

ID: 9901301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 17:02:08.445051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:30.532606
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

                                        UNITED STATES

                                                  v.

                                     Leland D. SHULTZ
                     Chief Electronics Technician (E-7), U.S. Coast Guard

                                         CGCMSP 25014
                                         Docket No. 1486

                                        20 September 2023

Special court-martial sentenced adjudged on 15 November 2022.

       Military Judge:                            CDR Timothy N. Cronin, USCG
       Appellate Defense Counsel:                 LT Schuyler B. Millham, USCG

                                       BEFORE
                          MCCLELLAND, BRUBAKER & HERMAN
                                Appellate Military Judges

Per curiam:

       Appellant was tried by special court-martial composed of military judge alone. Pursuant
to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted
of one specification of false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of extramarital sexual conduct, in violation of
Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-3 and a bad-conduct
discharge. The convening authority suspended reduction in grade beyond reduction to E-5.
Thereafter, judgment was entered.

       Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and
fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.

       The specification of extramarital conduct calls for our attention:
         United States v. Leland D. SHULTZ, No. 1486 (C. G. Ct. Crim. App. 2023)

       In that [Appellant], while on active duty, did, at or near Portsmouth, Virginia, on
       or about January 2020 through January 2021, wrongfully engage in extramarital
       conduct, to wit: had sexual intercourse with [JH], a person the accused knew was
       not the accused’s spouse, and that such conduct was of a nature to bring discredit
       upon the armed forces.

       This specification is intended to allege what was formerly called adultery, that is, sexual
intercourse between two persons, at least one of whom is married to someone else. However, it
does not allege that either person was married. It is therefore an inadequate specification. United
States v. King, 34 M.J. 95, 97 (C.M.A. 1992).

       During the providence inquiry, the military judge informed Appellant of the elements of
this offense, including: “Two, that at the time, you were married to someone else, which you
knew.” R. at 32. Appellant acknowledged, “I was still married while I had a sexual relationship
with somebody that was not my wife.” R. at 34. Given the proper plea inquiry that took place,
the defective specification did not prejudice Appellant’s substantial rights. United States v.
Ballan, 71 M.J. 28, 35 (C.A.A.F. 2012).

       We note that the convening authority, in suspending a portion of the sentence, failed to
specify the conditions or period of probation, as required by Rule for Courts-Martial 1107(c) and
(d)(3), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019) (MCM). Further, the military judge, in
the Entry of Judgment, stated the sentence to be entered thus: “Reduced to E-3, sentence
suspended by Convening Authority to a reduction to E-5.” This language does not conform to the
convening authority’s language or to customary language, and it is confusing. As there is no
indication of any proceedings to vacate the suspension, we will simply disapprove reduction
below E-5.

                                                 2
         United States v. Leland D. SHULTZ, No. 1486 (C. G. Ct. Crim. App. 2023)

                                             Decision
       Only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to E-5 and a bad-conduct
discharge is affirmed. We determine that the findings and sentence, as modified, are correct in
law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings
of guilty and the sentence, as modified, are affirmed.

                                                               For the Court,
                                                                            Digitally signed by
                                                         VALDES.SARAH VALDES.SARAH.P.1503854
                                                                       704
                                                         .P.1503854704 Date: 2023.09.20 10:31:41
                                                                            -04'00'
                                                               Sarah P. Valdes
                                                               Clerk of the Court

                                                 3