Court Opinion

ID: 4520504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-03-30 07:01:27.059481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:01.248653
License: Public Domain

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

                                    No. ACM S32596
                              ________________________

                                 UNITED STATES
                                     Appellee
                                           v.
                            Jaquan T. HILL
            Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                              ________________________

         Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                              Decided 27 March 2020
                              ________________________

Military Judge: Jennifer E. Powell.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 29 April 2019 by SpCM convened at
Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Sentence entered by military judge on
15 May 2019: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 7 months,
forfeiture of $900.00 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E-1.
For Appellant: Major Benjamin H. DeYoung, USAF.
Before MINK, LEWIS, and D. JOHNSON, 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    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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:
   The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. *

*After the court-martial adjourned, the military judge signed a Statement of Trial
Results (STR) and inserted it into the record of trial in accordance with Rule for Courts-
Martial (R.C.M.) 1101(a). The rule lists a number of required contents, including inter
(Footnote continues on next page)
                      United States v. Hill, No. ACM S32596

Articles 59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a),
866(d). Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.). Accordingly, the
findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                   FOR THE COURT

                   CAROL K. JOYCE
                   Clerk of the Court

alia “the command by which [the court-martial] was convened.” R.C.M. 1101(a)(3). The
STR in this case included most of the required contents, and it indicated the squadron
and major command to which Appellant was assigned, but it omitted the command
which convened the court-martial. United States v. Moody-Neukom, No. ACM S32594,
2019 CCA LEXIS 521, at *2–3 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 16 Dec. 2019) (unpub. op.).
However, we find no colorable showing of possible prejudice from this minor omission,
see United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435, 436–37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citing United States v.
Kho, 54 M.J. 63, 65 (C.A.A.F. 2000)), and we do not find it necessary to direct corrective
action pursuant to R.C.M. 1112(d)(2).

                                            2