Court Opinion

ID: 9926850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 20:01:26.12581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:03.832069
License: Public Domain

Before
                           KISOR, McCOY, and DALY
                            Appellate Military Judges

                           _________________________

                             UNITED STATES
                                 Appellee

                                         v.

                         Nicholas J. BAUTISTA
                      Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps
                                  Appellant

                                No. 202300068

                           _________________________

                            Decided: 25 January 2024

      Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

                               Military Judges:
                        Cory M. Picton (arraignment)
                      Andrea C. Goode (motions and trial)

Sentence adjudged 27 October 2022 by a general court-martial convened at
Marine Corps Base Hawaii, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sen-
tence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 400 days,
forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge. 1

                                For Appellant:
                         Major Joshua P. Keefe, USMC

                               For Appellee:
                 Lieutenant Rachel E. Noveroske, JAGC, USN

1 Appellant was credited with having served 209 days of pretrial confinement.
                  United States v. Bautista, NMCCA No. 202300068
                                 Opinion of the Court

   Judge McCOY delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Senior Judge KI-
   SOR and Judge DALY joined.

                              _________________________

       This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be
       cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Appellate
                              Procedure 30.2.

                              _________________________

McCOY, Judge:
    Appellant was convicted, consistent with his pleas, of three specifications of aggra-
vated assault, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ], 2
two specifications of domestic violence, in violation of Article 128b, UCMJ, 3 one spec-
ification of resisting apprehension, in violation of Article 87a, UCMJ, 4 one specifica-
tion of damaging military property, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ, 5 one specifica-
tion of disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 6 and one specification of
damaging nonmilitary property, in violation of Article 109, UCMJ. 7
    Appellant asserts a sole assignment of error: whether the military judge erred in
certifying the Entry of Judgment, which failed to summarize the charges and specifi-
cations and incorrectly omitted findings for the sole specification of Charge IV. We
find no prejudicial error and affirm the findings and sentence. However, to ensure
that Appellant’s record of trial is correct and accurately reflects the proceedings, we
take action in our decretal paragraph.

   2 10 U.S.C. § 928.

   3 10 U.S.C. § 928b.

   4 10 U.S.C. § 887a.

   5 10 U.S.C. § 908.

   6 10 U.S.C. § 934.

   7 10 U.S.C. § 909.

                                           2
                    United States v. Bautista, NMCCA No. 202300068
                                   Opinion of the Court

                                    I. BACKGROUND

    On October 27, 2023, the military judge convicted Appellant consistent with his
pleas and in accordance with his plea agreement. The Entry of Judgment contained a
summary of each charge and specification. 8 However, the Entry of Judgment omitted
the finding for the sole specification of Charge IV, to which Appellant pleaded guilty
of violating Article 108, UCMJ. Appellant made no post-trial motion to correct the
Entry of Judgment. 9

                                    II. DISCUSSION

    Whether a record of trial is accurate and complete is a question we review de
novo. 10 An appellant is entitled to have the official record accurately reflect what
happened in the proceedings. 11 Appellant submits that the military judge erred in
certifying the Entry of Judgment, which: (1) failed to summarize the charges and spec-
ifications, and (2) incorrectly omitted findings for the sole specification of Charge IV.
The Government submits that the military judge properly summarized the charges
and specifications but concedes that the military judge erred by omitting a finding for
the sole specification of Charge IV.
    We find that, contrary to Appellant’s contention, the Entry of Judgment correctly
summarizes the charges and specifications. 12 However, we agree with Appellant that
the military judge’s omission of the finding for the sole specification of Charge IV was
error.

   8 Rule for Courts-Martial [R.C.M.] 1111(b)(1)(A).

   9 R.C.M. 1104(b)(2)(C).

   10 United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998).

   11 Id. at 539.

   12 R.C.M. 1111(b)(1)(A).

                                             3
                  United States v. Bautista, NMCCA No. 202300068
                                 Opinion of the Court

                                   III. CONCLUSION

   After careful consideration of the record and briefs of appellate counsel, 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 substantial rights occurred. 13
    However, as the Entry of Judgment does not accurately reflect the disposition of
the charges, in accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial 1111(c)(2), we modify the En-
try of Judgment and direct that it be included in the record.
   The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                                  FOR THE COURT:

                                  MARK K. JAMISON
                                  Clerk of Court

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

                                             4
UNITED STATES                                      NMCCA NO. 202300068

       v.                                                 ENTRY
                                                           OF
Nicholas J. BAUTISTA                                    JUDGMENT
Corporal (E-4)
U.S. Marine Corps                                  As Modified on Appeal
                     Accused
                                                       25 January 2024

   On 27 October 2022, the Accused was tried at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, by gen-
eral court-martial consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Military Judge Andrea
C. Goode presided.

                                   FINDINGS

   The following are the Accused’s pleas and the Court’s finding to all offenses the
convening authority referred to trial:

Charge I:     Violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
              10 U.S.C. § 928.
               Plea: Guilty.
               Finding: Guilty.

   Specification 1: Aggravated assault with infliction of substantial
                    bodily harm on a spouse on or about 2 April 2022.
                       Plea: Withdrawn and Dismissed without prejudice by the
                       convening authority on 24 June 2022.
                       Finding: Withdrawn and Dismissed without prejudice by the
                       convening authority on 24 June 2022.

   Specification 2: Assault upon a person in the execution of law
                    enforcement duties on or about 2 April 2022.
                       Plea: Guilty.
                       Finding: Guilty.
               United States v. Bautista, NMCCA No. 202300068
                         Modified Entry of Judgment

Charge II:   Violation of Article 128b, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
             10 U.S.C. § 928b.
             Plea: Guilty.
             Finding: Guilty.

   Specification 1: Domestic violence on or about 2 April 2022.
                     Plea: Guilty.
                     Finding: Guilty.

   Specification 2: Domestic violence on or about 2 April 2022.
                     Plea: Not Guilty.
                     Finding: Dismissed.

Charge III: Violation of Article 87a, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
            10 U.S.C. § 887a.
             Plea: Guilty.
             Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:    Resisting apprehension on or about 2 April 2022.
                     Plea: Guilty.
                     Finding: Guilty.

Charge IV: Violation of Article 108, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
           10 U.S.C. § 908.
             Plea: Guilty.
             Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:    Damaging military property on or about 2 April 2022.
                     Plea: Guilty.
                     Finding: Guilty.

Charge V:    Violation of Article 117, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
             10 U.S.C. § 917.
             Plea: Not Guilty.
             Finding: Withdrawn and Dismissed.

   Specification:    Provoking speeches or gestures on or about 2 April
                     2022.
                     Plea: Not Guilty.
                     Finding: Withdrawn and Dismissed.

                                        2
                United States v. Bautista, NMCCA No. 202300068
                          Modified Entry of Judgment

Charge VI: Violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
           10 U.S.C. § 934.
              Plea: Guilty.
              Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:     Drunk and disorderly conduct on or about 2 April
                      2022.
                      Plea: Guilty.
                      Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge I:     Violation of Article 109, Uniform Code of Military
            Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 909.
              Plea: Guilty.
              Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:     Damaging nonmilitary property on or about 2 April
                      2022.
                      Plea: Guilty.
                      Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge II:    Violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military
            Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 928.
              Plea: Guilty.
              Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:     Aggravated assault on or about 2 April 2022.
                      Plea: Guilty.
                      Finding: Guilty.

                                  SENTENCE

   On 27 October 2022, the military judge sentenced the Accused to the following:
      Reduction to pay grade E-1.
      Confinement for a total of 400 days, as follows:
          For Specification 2 of Charge I:
             confinement for 360 days.
          For Specification 1 of Charge II:
             confinement for 400 days.
          For Specification 2 of Charge II:
             confinement for 240 days.

                                             3
                 United States v. Bautista, NMCCA No. 202300068
                           Modified Entry of Judgment

          For the Specification of Charge III:
             confinement for 45 days.
          For the Specification of Charge IV:
             confinement for 45 days.
          For the Specification of Charge VI:
             confinement for 45 days.
          For the Specification of Additional Charge I:
             confinement for 45 days.
          For the Specification of Additional Charge II:
             confinement for 400 days.
          The terms of confinement will run concurrently.
The Accused has served 209 days of pretrial confinement and shall be credited with
209 days of confinement already served, to be deducted from the adjudged sentence to
confinement.
      Forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
      A bad-conduct discharge.

                                FOR THE COURT:

                                MARK K. JAMISON
                                Clerk of Court

                                          4