Court Opinion

ID: 9906953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 17:02:28.804871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:51.161794
License: Public Domain

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
            C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
                        ________________________

                            No. ACM 40372
                        ________________________

                          UNITED STATES
                              Appellee
                                     v.
                        Carson C. CONWAY
               Captain (O-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                       ________________________

       Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                       Decided 5 December 2023
                       ________________________

Military Judge: Julie L. Pitvorec.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 22 February 2022 by GCM convened at
Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas. Sentence entered by military judge on
18 October 2022: Dismissal, confinement for 5 months, and a reprimand.
For Appellant: Major Matthew L. Blyth, USAF; Major David L. Bosner
USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel James Peter Ferrell, USAF; Captain
Olivia B. Hoff, USAF; Captain Tyler L. Washburn, USAF; Mary Ellen
Payne, Esquire.
Before ANNEXSTAD, RAMÍREZ, and KEARLEY, Appellate Military
Judges.
Judge RAMÍREZ delivered the opinion of the court, in which Senior
Judge ANNEXSTAD and Judge KEARLEY joined.
                        ________________________

   This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
   precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
                       ________________________
                   United States v. Conway, No. ACM 40372

RAMÍREZ, Judge:
    In accordance with Appellant’s pleas, and pursuant to a plea agreement, a
general court-martial comprised of a military judge sitting alone convicted
Appellant of one specification of distribution of intimate visual images, and one
specification of knowingly making a false written statement in connection with
the acquisition of a firearm, in violation of Articles 117a and 134, Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 917a, 934. 1 Three specifications
alleging conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, in violation of Article
133, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 933, were dismissed with prejudice consistent with
Appellant’s plea agreement. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a
dismissal, confinement for five months, and a reprimand. The convening
authority took no action on the findings or sentence.
    Appellant raises five issues on appeal, which we reword: (1) whether
omissions from the record of trial require sentencing relief or remand for
correction; (2) whether a plea agreement requiring dismissal renders the
sentencing procedure an “empty ritual” and violates public policy; (3) whether
trial counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing
argument; (4) whether Appellant’s sentence is inappropriately severe; and (5)
whether 18 U.S.C. § 922 is unconstitutional as applied to Appellant.
   We remand this case as we find the first issue has merit and must be
addressed before we consider the remaining issues.

                                 I. BACKGROUND
   As to Issue (1), Appellant explains in his brief that the following are
omissions or deficiencies in the record:
       1. Two Article 32, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 832, preliminary hearings
       were conducted in the above-captioned case. The audio
       recordings for both preliminary hearings are missing.
       2. After Appellant’s second Article 32, UCMJ, preliminary
       hearing, both parties provided the preliminary hearing officer
       (PHO) with supplemental information. This information was
       listed by the PHO in a chart as part of the PHO report but is
       missing from the record.
       3. PHO Exhibits 4–8, contained on a DVD, are inoperable.

1 All references in this opinion to the UCMJ, the Military Rules of Evidence, and the

Rules for Courts-Martial are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019
ed.).

                                         2
                  United States v. Conway, No. ACM 40372

       4. Attachments 3, 4, and 7 to Prosecution Exhibit 1, the
       stipulation of fact, are missing.
       5. Appellate Exhibit XI, Appellant’s post-trial appellate rights
       advisement form, is missing.
   The Government acknowledges the items listed by Appellant are missing
from the record of trial and has confirmed these items still exist in the
possession of the legal office, located at Laughlin Air Force Base (AFB), Texas.
    The court further notes that Prosecution Exhibit 5 (a letter of reprimand
which Appellant received and was accepted as a sentencing exhibit) lists three
attachments, but the attachments are missing.

                                II. DISCUSSION
   Whether a record is complete is a question of law that this court reviews de
novo. United States v. Davenport, 73 M.J. 373, 376 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (citation
omitted).
    “[A] complete record of proceedings and testimony shall be prepared in any
case of a sentence of . . . dismissal . . . .” Article 54(c)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.
§ 854(c)(2). This includes any evidence or exhibits considered by the court-
martial, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1112(b), and if not used
as an exhibit, the preliminary hearing report pursuant to R.C.M. 1112(f).
   Here, the Government concedes that the record of trial (ROT) is incomplete
and should be remanded. We agree. According to the Government, the
Laughlin AFB legal office “possesses the omitted items and has the ability to
make the ROT whole.” Therefore, we remand the ROT to the Chief Trial Judge,
Air Force Trial Judiciary, to comply with the requirements of Article 54,
UCMJ, and R.C.M. 1112(b).

                               III. CONCLUSION
    Pursuant to R.C.M. 1112(d)(2), this case is REMANDED to the Chief Trial
Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, to correct the record with respect to the six
items identified in this opinion above and any other item that is missing from
the record of trial and is required under R.C.M. 1112. Additionally, the military
judge shall give notice of any proposed corrections to all parties and permit
them to examine and respond to the proposed corrections. R.C.M. 1112(d)(2).
   Thereafter, the record of trial will be returned to the court not later than 9

                                       3
                United States v. Conway, No. ACM 40372

January 2024 for completion of its appellate review under Article 66(d),
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d).

                  FOR THE COURT

                  CAROL K. JOYCE
                  Clerk of the Court

                                   4