Court Opinion

ID: 9913603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 16:01:51.32964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:59.175501
License: Public Domain

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

                                    Before
                        HACKEL, GROSS, and BLOSSER
                           Appellate Military Judges

                             _________________________

                               UNITED STATES
                                   Appellee

                                           v.

                         Stanford N. KAPAYOU
                   Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps
                                 Appellant

                                 No. 202300145

                             _________________________

                            Decided: 28 December 2023

      Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

                                   Military Judge:
                                   Adam C. King

    Sentence adjudged 26 January 2023 by a general court-martial con-
    vened at Marine Corps Base Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, consisting
    of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment:
    reduction to E-1, confinement for 20 months, 1 forfeiture of all pay and
    allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. 2

    1 Appellant was credited with 114 days of pretrial confinement.

    2 The convening authority’s written action purported to “order the sentence be ex-

ecuted as adjudged with the exception of the Dishonorable Discharge, which I order
adjudged once this case is certified as final in accordance with [Rule for Courts-Martial
               United States v. Kapayou, NMCCA No. 202300145
                              Opinion of the Court

                               For Appellant:
                     Commander Kyle C. Kneese, 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, and Appellant having not challenged the factual sufficiency of this case,
we have determined that the findings are correct in law, the sentence is correct
in law and fact, and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substan-
tial rights occurred. 3
    The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                                    FOR THE COURT:

                                    MARK K. JAMISON
                                    Clerk of Court

[R.C.M.]] 1102(b)(3) and 1209.” A convening authority has no authority to order a sen-
tence executed or adjudged. A convening authority is not required to take any action
on a sentence, R.C.M. 1109(g)(2); R.C.M. 1110(c)(1), (e)(1), but may reduce, commute,
or suspend all or portions of a sentence in limited circumstances. See Article
60a(a)(1)(A), Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(A);
R.C.M. 1109(c); R.C.M. 1110(c), (e)(3). Here, the convening authority’s language with
regard to the sentence is a legal nullity. See, e.g., United States v. Kruse, 75 M.J. 971,
975 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2016) (involving the purported disapproval of a bad-conduct
discharge the parties agreed, via the pretrial agreement, would be approved and sus-
pended). Nonetheless, the convening authority’s desire to take no action to reduce,
commute, or suspend Appellant’s sentence is clear and unambiguous.
    3 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

                                            2