Court Opinion

ID: 9373992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:11:08.372411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:44.056713
License: Public Domain

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
              C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
                           ________________________
                                No. ACM 40239
                           ________________________
                              UNITED STATES
                                  Appellee
                                       v.
                          Charles D. GARRON
              Staff Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                           ________________________
        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                          Decided 9 February 2023
                           ________________________
Military Judge: Elijah F. Brown.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 8 September 2021 by GCM convened at
Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. Sentence entered by mili-
tary judge on 13 October 2021: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for
12 months, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and
a reprimand.
For Appellant: Major Alexandra K. Fleszar, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Alford, USAF; Major John
P. Patera, USAF; Major Jay S. Peer, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs,
USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before POSCH, RICHARDSON, and CADOTTE, Appellate Military
Judges.
                           ________________________
    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
                       ________________________
PER CURIAM:
    A general court-martial composed of a military judge alone found Appellant
guilty, in accordance with his pleas and a plea agreement, of one specification
of sexual abuse of a child under 16 years of age on divers occasions, in violation
                    United States v. Garron, No. ACM 40239

of Article 120b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920b.1
As part of the plea agreement with the convening authority, Appellant waived
his right to a trial by members and requested to be tried by military judge
alone. The plea agreement established a maximum of 12 months’ confinement
but imposed no other limitations on the sentence. The military judge sentenced
Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 12 months, total forfei-
ture of pay and allowances, reduction to the grade of E-1, and a reprimand.
    Appellant asserts one assignment of error, pursuant to United States v.
Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982): that the record of trial is substantially
incomplete in that it omits the recording of the preliminary hearing and a pre-
liminary hearing exhibit containing the complaining witness’s interview.
   Finding no error that materially prejudiced a substantial right of Appellant
and concluding that the sentence is correct in law and fact and should be ap-
proved, we affirm the findings and sentence.

                                 I. BACKGROUND
   In 2019, on two occasions, Appellant touched over the clothing the vulva of
VG, the 10-year-old daughter of close family friends and a fellow squadron
member. On both occasions, Appellant visited the home of those friends on
Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. Appellant had VG sit on his lap,
then Appellant touched VG’s vulva over the clothes for approximately 10 to 15
minutes on the first occasion, and 10 minutes on the second occasion. Each
time Appellant touched VG’s vulva it was with the intent to gratify his sexual
desire.
    At Appellant’s court-martial, the military judge accepted his pleas and an-
nounced findings of guilty. On 10 December 2021, the court reporter certified
that “the Record of Trial [w]as accurate and complete in accordance with [Rule
for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)] 1112(b).” On 26 January 2022, the record was
docketed with this court. Attached to the record is a Preliminary Hearing Of-
ficer (PHO) report for an Article 32, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 832, hearing held on
16 April 2021. During Appellant’s preliminary hearing, PHO Exhibit 4 was
provided to, reviewed by, and sealed by the PHO. The PHO report describes
the exhibit as a recording of the victim’s child forensic interview consisting of
two video files; however, the item marked PHO Exhibit 4 contained in the
court’s record was not a recording of the victim’s child forensic interview. Ra-
ther, the disc contained a recording of another child forensic interview which

1 All offenses were committed after 1 January 2019. All references in this opinion to
the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

                                         2
                     United States v. Garron, No. ACM 40239

was not introduced at the preliminary hearing. Additionally, the PHO report
failed to include an audio recording of the proceeding as an attachment.
    On 2 December 2022, we ordered the Government to obtain and file a mo-
tion to attach to the record: “(1) [t]he recording of Appellant’s preliminary hear-
ing conducted on 23 April 2021; and (2) [t]he recording of VG’s child forensic
interview consisting of two video files offered by the Government at Appellant’s
preliminary hearing as PHO Exhibit 4, which were considered by the PHO.”
    On 14 December 2022, in response to our order, the Government moved to
attach a copy of PHO Exhibit 4 and the recording of the Article 32, UCMJ,
hearing.2 On 18 January 2023, we granted the Government’s motion.3

                                   II. DISCUSSION
    A record of trial must include items listed in R.C.M. 1112(b)(1)–(9). See
R.C.M. 1112(d)(2) (“A record of trial is complete if it complies with the require-
ments of subsection (b).”). A PHO report under Article 32, UCMJ, to include its
attachments, is not required content of a record of trial under R.C.M. 1112(b).
However, the Government, through a court reporter, is required to attach cer-
tain items to a record of trial before a certified record is forwarded for appellate
review. R.C.M. 1112(f). The PHO report is among those items the Government
is required to attach to the record of trial. R.C.M. 1112(f)(1)(A).
    Appellant’s assignment of error brief alleges that the record of trial is sub-
stantially incomplete in that it omits the recording of the preliminary hearing
and a preliminary hearing exhibit. As a remedy, Appellant requests we disap-
prove his punitive discharge, or in the alternative, “remand his case to the mil-
itary judge to complete the record by including the preliminary hearing record-
ing and originally submitted PHO Exhibit 4.” The Government acknowledged
the correct PHO Exhibit 4 and a recording of the preliminary hearing were
both “absent from the record of trial.” As both items have now been attached

2PHO Exhibit 4 consists of VG’s forensic interview on two discs, each containing one
video file. We note a portion of the video file contained on the first disc—from the 22:31
minute mark until the end of the file at the 33:26 minute mark—contains no viewable
content.
3We initially denied the Government’s motion to attach on 19 December 2022. How-
ever, the Government submitted a motion to reconsider on 5 January 2023. Appellant
raised no opposition to the Government’s reconsideration motion. We granted the Gov-
ernment’s motion on 18 January 2023.

                                            3
                     United States v. Garron, No. ACM 40239

to the record, we find further relief is not warranted.4,5 Appellant alleges no
other basis for finding the record of trial incomplete under R.C.M. 1112(b), and
we find none.

                                  III. CONCLUSION
   The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d).6 Accordingly, the findings
and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                   FOR THE COURT

                   CAROL K. JOYCE
                   Clerk of the Court

4 On 21 September 2022, we granted Appellant’s motion to examine sealed materials,
to include PHO Exhibit 4. Then, on 30 January 2023 after PHO Exhibit 4 was attached
to the record, counsel for Appellant filed a Second Motion to Examine Sealed Materials
requesting to view PHO Exhibit 4 and to determine if there was any basis for filing an
additional assignment of error. Counsel acknowledged the court’s 21 September 2022
order but noted the subsequent motion was filed in an abundance of caution. On 1 Feb-
ruary 2023, we concluded Appellant’s motion was moot but authorized counsel for both
parties to view the sealed portions of the PHO report. We further ordered that exami-
nation of the sealed material, or submission of any filings related to those materials,
shall take place not later than 7 February 2023. Appellant did not submit any filings
related to the sealed materials. Appellant has not claimed material prejudice arising
from the unviewable portion of the first disc of PHO Exhibit 4, and we find none.
5 We find that the matter of the missing attachments to the record is raised by “the
record,” which includes “matters attached to the record” for appellate review in accord-
ance with R.C.M. 1112(f), and thus we may consider them, along with an affidavit by
an assistant staff judge advocate, in conducting our review. See United States v. Jessie,
79 M.J. 437, 444 (C.A.A.F. 2020) (holding Courts of Criminal Appeals may consider
affidavits when doing so is necessary to resolve issues raised by materials in the rec-
ord).
6 The entry of judgement (EoJ) incorrectly states Appellant “requested deferment of
the mandatory forfeitures of pay and reduction to the grade of E-1,” (emphasis added),
when Appellant actually requested deferment of “reduction in rank and the implemen-
tation of his adjudged forfeitures.” The convening authority denied Appellant’s re-
quest. Appellant has not claimed prejudice as to this error in the EoJ, and we find
none.

                                           4