Court Opinion

ID: 4305950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-21 22:01:08.566201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:51.824988
License: Public Domain

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

                          No. ACM 39125 (f rev)
                         ________________________

                            UNITED STATES
                                Appellee
                                      v.
                        John D. GONZALEZ
             Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                         ________________________

        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                            Upon further review
                         Decided 21 August 2018
                         ________________________

Military Judge: Marvin W. Tubbs II.
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 6 years, and
reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 21 April 2016 by GCM convened at
Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
For Appellant: Major Mark C. Bruegger, USAF; Major Patrick A. Clary,
USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Major Mary
Ellen Payne, USAF; Major J. Ronald Steelman III, USAF; Gerald R.
Bruce, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, MINK, and DENNIS, Appellate Military Judges.
                         ________________________

    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
                       ________________________

PER CURIAM:
   We have this case for further review after returning the record of trial to
The Judge Advocate General for remand to the convening authority for a new
              United States v. Gonzalez, No. ACM 39125 (f rev)

post-trial process and action due to ineffective assistance of counsel during the
post-trial phase. United States v. Gonzalez, 2018 CCA LEXIS 145, at *31–40,
44 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 22 A.K. Marsh. 2018).
    A new post-trial process and convening authority action have been accom-
plished with Appellant represented by conflict-free counsel. We find the ap-
proved findings and sentence to be correct in law and fact, and no error mate-
rially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights remains to be addressed. Ar-
ticles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a),
866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                     FOR THE COURT

                     CAROL K. JOYCE
                     Clerk of the Court

                                       2