Court Opinion

ID: 9900502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 23:01:16.153023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:06.892605
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.

                        Javier J. GALINDO
                   Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps
                               Appellant

                             No. 202300148

                         _________________________

                        Decided: 15 November 2023

    Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

                              Military Judge:
                             Matthew R. Brower

 Sentence adjudged 2 March 2023 by a general court-martial convened
 at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, consisting of a military
 judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to
 E-1, confinement for 36 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,
 and a dishonorable discharge. 1

                           For Appellant:
                 Commander Kyle C. Kneese, JAGC, USN

 1 Appellant was credited with 38 days of pretrial confinement.
                 United States v. Galindo, NMCCA No. 202300148
                               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, 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. 2
    However, we find the conviction for possession digital images in the Speci-
fication of Charge II to be legally insufficient. In a colloquy with trial counsel,
the military judge confirmed the guilty plea involved videos only. 3 The stipu-
lation of fact and the military judge’s guilty plea inquiry with Appellant each
support this same conclusion. 4 Although the military judge erred by not ex-
cepting the language “digital images and” from the specification prior to find-
ing Appellant guilty, we find this excess language had no impact on Appellant’s
sentence. Nonetheless, Appellant is entitled to have court-martial records that
correctly reflect the content of his proceeding. 5 In accordance with Rule for
Courts-Martial 1111(c)(2), we modify the Entry of Judgment and direct that
the modified Entry of Judgment be included in the record.
    The findings, except for the words “digital images and” in the Specification
of Charge II, and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                                  FOR THE COURT:

                                  MARK K. JAMISON
                                  Clerk of Court

   2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

   3 R. at 47.

   4 Pros. Ex. 1; R. at 40-66.

   5 United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998).

                                         2
UNITED STATES                                 NMCCA NO. 202300148

       v.                                           ENTRY
                                                     OF
Javier J. GALINDO                                 JUDGMENT
Sergeant (E-5)
U.S. Marine Corps                             As Modified on Appeal
                     Accused
                                                15 November 2023

    On 2 March 2023, the Accused was tried at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-
Hickam, Hawaii, by a general court-martial, consisting of a military judge sit-
ting alone. Military Judge Matthew R. Brower presided.

                                  FINDINGS

   The following are the Accused’s pleas and the Court’s findings to all of-
fenses the convening authority referred to trial:

Charge I:     Violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
              10 U.S.C. § 880.
               Plea: Guilty.
               Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:      Attempted sexual abuse of a child by wrongfully
                       committing a lewd act upon a person believed to
                       be a child who had not attained the age of 16
                       years on or about 22 January 2023.
                       Plea: Guilty.
                       Finding: Guilty.

Charge II:    Violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military
              Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934.
              Plea: Guilty.
              Finding: Guilty
             United States v. Galindo, NMCCA No. 202300148
                       Modified Entry of Judgment

   Specification:     Knowingly and wrongfully possessed child
                      pornography on or about 13 July 2023, to wit:
                      videos of minors engaging in sexually explicit
                      conduct.
                      Plea: Guilty.
                      Finding: Guilty.

                              SENTENCE

   On 2 March 2023, a military judge sentenced the Accused to the following:
      Reduction to pay grade E-1.
      Confinement for a total of 36 months, as follows:
      For the Specification of Charge I:
             confinement for 36 months.
      For the Specification of Charge II:
             confinement for 36 months.
      The terms of confinement will run concurrently.
      Total forfeitures of all pay and allowances.
      A Dishonorable Discharge.
    The Accused has served 38 days of pretrial confinement and shall be cred-
ited with 38 days of confinement already served, to be deducted from the ad-
judged sentence to confinement.
   The convening authority took no action on the case.

                               FOR THE COURT:

                               MARK K. JAMISON
                               Clerk of Court

                                      2