Court Opinion

ID: 9907634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 19:02:07.707019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:58.120109
License: Public Domain

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

                                Before
                    HACKEL, MCCOY, and BLOSSER
                       Appellate Military Judges

                        _________________________

                          UNITED STATES
                              Appellee

                                     v.

                      Jorge D. WITKOWSKI
                   Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps
                               Appellant

                             No. 202300102

                        _________________________

                         Decided: 6 December 2023

    Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

                            Military Judges:
                      Frank Hutchison (arraignment)
                          John Stephens (trial)

 Sentence adjudged 19 January 2023 by a general court-martial con-
 vened at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, consisting of a military
 judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to
 E-1, confinement for forty months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,
 and a dishonorable discharge.

                          For Appellant:
         Lieutenant Commander Matthew A. Kozyra, JAGC, USN
              United States v. Witkowski, NMCCA No. 202300102
                              Opinion of the Court

                             _________________________

        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. 1
    The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                                    FOR THE COURT:

                                    MARK K. JAMISON
                                    Clerk of Court

    1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

However, we note that the record is devoid of any colloquy from the military judge
regarding whether Appellant knowingly waived his right to a preliminary hearing un-
der Article 32, UCMJ. See Rule for Courts-Martial 405(m). The record includes a letter
from trial defense counsel to trial counsel on 1 July 2022 indicating Appellant waived
his right to a preliminary hearing. Additionally, at arraignment, in Appellant’s pres-
ence, trial counsel advised the military judge that “an Article 32 preliminary hearing
was waived.” R. at 4. Otherwise, no inquiry into Appellant’s knowing waiver appears
in the record. See United States v. Garcia, 59 M.J. 447, 451 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (tasking
military judges with ensuring that waiver of an Article 32 hearing is “freely given and
fully understood”). Regardless, we find no prejudicial error occurred. See, e.g., United
States v. Chuculate, 5 M.J. 143, 145 (C.M.A. 1978) (internal citation omitted) (“If there
is no timely objection to the pretrial proceedings or no indication that these proceed-
ings adversely affected the accused’s right at the trial, there is no good reason in law
or logic to set aside [Appellant’s] conviction.”).

                                           2