Court Opinion

ID: 9913668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 17:01:50.084188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:31.007951
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.

                        Jerome G. TRUSS
                   Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps
                               Appellant

                             No. 202200198

                        _________________________

                        Decided: 28 December 2023

    Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

                              Military Judge:
                              Melanie Mann

 Sentence adjudged 16 May 2022 by a general court-martial convened at
 Marine Corps Base Hawaii, consisting of a military judge sitting alone.
 Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement for 10 years, reduction
 to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable dis-
 charge.

                             For Appellant:
                  Captain Thomas P. Belsky, JAGC, USN

                             For Appellee:
                    Major Mary Claire Finnen, USMC
                United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                             Opinion of the Court

                            _________________________

        This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under
              NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

                            _________________________

GROSS, Judge:
    A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, in
accordance with his pleas, of two specifications of attempted fraternization, one
specification of solicitation of prostitution, one specification of fraternization,
two specifications of sexual harassment, one specification of false official state-
ment, one specification of communicating a threat, two specifications of sexual
assault, one specification of abusive sexual contact, and one specification of
extortion in violation of Articles 80, 82, 92, 107, 115, 120 and 127 of the Uni-
form Code of Military Justice [UCMJ]. 1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the mil-
itary judge sentenced Appellant to 10 years of confinement, reduction to
paygrade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable dis-
charge. 2
    Appellant raises three summary assignments of error: (1) Appellant’s con-
victions for communicating a threat and extortion are multiplicious and con-
stitute an unreasonable multiplication of charges; (2) Appellant’s sentence of
confinement for 10 years is inappropriately severe; 3 and (3) Appellant is enti-
tled to a corrected Entry of Judgment [EOJ] because the one contained in the
record of trial fails to list all the offenses for which Appellant was convicted.

   1 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 892, 907, 915, 920, and 927.  We note that, although not raised
by the parties, the military judge erroneously entered a finding of guilty to rape by
exceptions and substitutions, excepting the words “by unlawful force” and substituting
the words “without her consent.” The record is clear, however, that Appellant intended
to plead guilty to the lesser included offense of sexual assault without consent. Both
the plea agreement and the elements listed by the military judge in the providence
inquiry contemplated a plea to sexual assault, and the facts elicited by the military
judge establish the elements of that offense. We will take action on this error in our
decretal paragraph.
   2 Appellant was credited with 179 days of pretrial confinement.

   3 Raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).

                                          2
                United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                             Opinion of the Court

    We find merit in Appellant’s third assignment of error and take corrective
action in our decretal paragraph. We conclude the remaining findings are cor-
rect in law, that the sentence is correct in law and fact, and that no error ma-
terially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant remains. 4

                                I. BACKGROUND

    While stationed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Appellant allegedly commit-
ted a number of offenses between 2017 and 2021, including sexual assault,
sexual harassment, fraternization, and extortion against no less than eight
adult, female victims, most of whom were fellow Marines. Once this miscon-
duct came to light, Appellant was charged with 18 specifications of violations
of the UCMJ for alleged sexual assaults against four Marines under his charge,
as well as fraternization, attempted fraternization, sexual harassment, solici-
tation to commit prostitution, making a false official statement, communi-
cating a threat, and extortion.
    Prior to trial, Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the convening
authority in which Appellant agreed to plead guilty to 12 of the 18 specifica-
tions. The convening authority agreed to withdraw and dismiss the remaining
specifications and charges. The convening authority and Appellant also agreed
that the military judge could sentence Appellant to no less than 10 years but
no more than 12 years of confinement for each of the two sexual assault speci-
fications of Lance Corporal (E-3) [LCpl] Alpha to which Appellant would plead
guilty. For the remaining 10 specifications, the plea agreement provided for
confinement ranging from zero years for some offenses, to as much as two years
for other offenses. All sentences to confinement were to run concurrently. Ap-
pellant also agreed to “waive all waivable motions.”
    Appellant entered into a stipulation of fact in which he admitted certain
facts related to the 12 specifications to which he was pleading guilty. He ad-
mitted that he sexually assaulted LCpl Alpha, 5 a Marine he had never previ-
ously met, after going to her barracks room; that LCpl Alpha told him “no”
when he tried to touch her, but that he nonetheless removed her shorts and
underwear as well as his own clothes before penetrating her vulva with his
penis and fingers; and that he placed LCpl Alpha’s hand on his penis until he
ejaculated. He also admitted that he attempted to fraternize with Private First

   4 Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.

    5 All names contained within this opinion, with the exceptions of Appellant, the

judges, and counsel are pseudonyms.
                                         3
                    United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                                 Opinion of the Court

Class (E-2) [PFC] Monroe and LCpl Bravo—his direct subordinates—by seek-
ing sexual relationships with them; that he sexually harassed PFC Monroe and
LCpl Bravo by making repeated unwanted sexual comments after they refused
to fraternize with him; and that he fraternized with PFC Connor by having a
sexual relationship with her. Additionally, he admitted that he lied to Naval
Criminal Investigative Service [NCIS] agents regarding his interactions with
LCpl Alpha. Finally, he admitted that he solicited Ms. Golf to have sex with
him for money. When she refused, he threatened to send a video of him having
sex with Ms. Golf to her boyfriend. He also admitted that he later told her that
he would not send the video to Ms. Golf’s boyfriend if she agreed to have sex
with him. 6
    At Appellant’s trial, the military judge discussed Appellant’s pleas of guilty
with him. Appellant told the military judge that his pleas of guilty were volun-
tary and that he had agreed to the plea agreement of his own accord. The mil-
itary judge conducted a thorough inquiry into the providence of Appellant’s
pleas of guilty, corroborating Appellant’s admissions in the stipulation of fact.
The military judge also conducted a careful and detailed colloquy with Appel-
lant about the plea agreement provision wherein Appellant agreed, in part, to
waive all waivable motions. 7 In addition to Appellant declaring that he under-
stood that provision and that he voluntarily agreed to it, Appellant’s counsel
informed the military judge that the Defense had initiated it. The military
judge also briefly discussed the issues of multiplicity and unreasonable multi-
plication of charges.
   Additional facts necessary to resolve specific assignments of error are dis-
cussed below.

                                  II. DISCUSSION

A. Appellant Waived the Issues of Multiplicity and Unreasonable Mul-
tiplication of Charges
    Appellant urges us to set aside Additional Charge VI (communication of a
threat) and its specification as either multiplicious or an unreasonable multi-
plication of charges in light of Appellant’s pleas to Additional Charge VII (ex-
tortion) and its specification. The Government argues that Appellant waived
claims of multiplicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges, and, alter-

   6 Pros. Ex. 1.

   7 R. at 147-48; see also App. Ex. IV at 10.

                                           4
                   United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                                Opinion of the Court

natively, that the findings of the two challenged charges are neither multi-
plicious nor unreasonably multiplied. We agree with the Government that Ap-
pellant affirmatively waived these arguments at the trial level.
    “[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known
right.” 8 “A criminal defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive many of
the most fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution.” 9 When an ap-
pellant intentionally waives a known right at trial, he is barred from raising
the issue on appeal. 10
    In Gladue, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [CAAF] held that a
term in a pretrial agreement whereby an appellant unambiguously agrees to
waive all waivable motions affirmatively waives appellate consideration of
claims of unreasonable multiplication of charges and multiplicity. The court
found that the provision within the plea agreement effected a waiver of the
issue and declined to apply a forfeiture analysis, even though the parties never
discussed the issues of unreasonable multiplication of charges or multiplicity
during the plea colloquy. 11
    However, just because an appellant has waived an issue does not preclude
a court of criminal appeals from considering the issue in conducting its review
functions under Article 66, UCMJ. 12 To the contrary, this Court is required to
conduct plenary review under Article 66(d). In conducting our review, we may
only affirm such findings of guilty as are correct in law, and in fact as set forth
in Article 66(d)(1)(B). Further, we may affirm only the sentence, or such part
or amount of the sentence, as we find correct in law and fact and determine, on
the basis of the entire record, should be approved. 13
    In Chin, our sister court set aside the findings of several specifications find-
ing them to be an unreasonable multiplication of charges and reassessed the
sentence, despite the fact that the appellant had, as in Gladue, signed a pre-
trial agreement agreeing to waive all waivable motions. 14 The Air Force Court

   8 United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311, 313 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (internal citation and

quotation omitted).
   9 Id. at 314.

   10 Id.

   11 Id. at 313-15.

   12 United States v. Chin, 75 M.J. 220, 222-223 (C.A.A.F. 2016).

   13 Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ.

   14 United States v. Chin, No. ACM 38452 (recon), 2015 CCA LEXIS 241 (A.F. Ct.

Crim. App. 2015) (unpublished), aff’d, 75 M.J. 220 (C.A.AF. 2016).
                                         5
                 United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                              Opinion of the Court

of Criminal Appeals [AFCCA] in Chin affirmed only some of the findings of
guilty, and dismissed several specifications and charges. 15
   The Government appealed the Chin decision to CAAF, challenging the au-
thority of courts of criminal appeals to review waived issues in light of the
CAAF’s holding in Gladue. Our superior court affirmed the AFCCA ruling, up-
holding the authority of courts of criminal appeals to consider, in conducting
their plenary review, issues that were waived at the trial level. Of note, how-
ever, the CAAF emphasized that “[w]aiver at the trial level continues to pre-
clude an appellant from raising the issue before either [a court of criminal ap-
peals] or [the CAAF].”16
    Here, there is no question that Appellant waived the issues of multiplicity
and unreasonable multiplication of charges at trial. Appellant entered into a
plea agreement with the Convening Authority, agreeing to “waive all motions
except those that are non-waivable pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial
[R.C.M.] 705(c)(1)(B) or otherwise.” 17 However, this was not the only instance
of the parties discussing the issues of multiplicity and unreasonable multipli-
cation of charges. As noted, the military judge discussed the issue briefly on
the record in summarizing an R.C.M. 802 conference held prior to the guilty
plea, and the issue was also discussed by counsel and the military judge in
email correspondence. 18
    Appellant makes no effort to distinguish this case from Gladue in his sum-
mary assignment of error, to explain why this issue is not waived, nor to ex-
plain why this Court should not give legal effect to the waiver he made below.
Rather, without acknowledging Chin’s express prohibition on an appellant
raising a waived issue on appeal, Appellant merely cites to Chin in an apparent
recognition of his waiver while nonetheless assigning error of the waived issue.
    Although an appellant has no right to present a waived issue on appeal, we
still must conduct a complete review of the record under our plenary authority
contained in Article 66. Having conducted our review of the record under Arti-
cle 66, we find no reason to disturb Appellant’s knowing, intelligent, and vol-
untary waiver of his right to claim appellate error based on a theory of multi-
plicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges. Appellant’s invitation to
apply Chin is unmoving.

   15 Id. at *34-*35.

   16 Chin, 75 M.J. at 223 (emphasis in original).

   17 App. Ex. IV at 10.

   18 App. Ex. XI.

                                          6
                United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                             Opinion of the Court

B. Appellant’s Sentence is not Inappropriately Severe
    We review sentence appropriateness de novo. 19 In conducting our review,
we “may affirm only the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as
[we find] correct in law and fact and determine[], on the basis of the entire
record, should be approved.” 20 Article 66 provides courts of criminal appeals a
great deal of discretion in determining whether a particular sentence is appro-
priate; however, in conducting our review, we are not authorized to engage in
exercises of clemency. 21 Generally, sentence appropriateness should be judged
by “individualized consideration” of the particular accused “on the basis of the
nature and seriousness of the offense and the character of the offender.” 22
    “Other than to ensure that the appellant’s approved sentence is one that
‘should be approved,’ we generally refrain from second guessing or comparing
a sentence that flows from a lawful pretrial agreement or a [convening author-
ity]’s lawful exercise of his authority to grant clemency to an appellant.” 23
    Appellant’s summary assignment of error offers little for this Court to con-
sider in determining the appropriateness of his sentence. In fact, this case is
similar to our prior case of United States v. Parker, where this Court denied
relief on sentence appropriateness grounds, stating “[Appellant] offers nothing
to explain how a sentence falling within a limited range he knowingly and vol-
untarily negotiated is now, once imposed, inappropriately severe.” 24
    Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the convening authority in
which the convening authority agreed to take substantial action that was fa-
vorable to Appellant. Notably, the agreement allowed Appellant to plead to the
lesser included offense of sexual assault for two specifications originally

   19 United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382, 384 (C.A.A.F. 2005).

   20 Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ.

   21 See United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286, 288 (C.A.A.F. 1999); United States v.

Healy, 26 M.J. 394, 395-96 (C.M.A. 1988).
   22 United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 (C.M.A. 1982).

   23 United States v. Widak, No. 201500309, 2016 CCA LEXIS 172, *7 (N-M. Ct.

Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2016) (unpublished) (quoting Article 66(c), UCMJ) (citing to
United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 146 (C.A.A.F. 2010)); see also United States v.
Casuso, No. 202000114, 2021 CCA LEXIS 328, *8 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jun. 30, 2021)
(unpublished) (questioning an appellant’s “claim of inappropriate severity when the
sentence he received was within the range of punishment he was expressly willing to
accept in exchange for his pleas of guilty”).
   24 United States v. Parker, No. 201400066, 2015 CCA LEXIS 9, at *18 (N-M. Ct.

Crim. App. Jan. 22, 2015) (unpublished).
                                          7
                   United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                                Opinion of the Court

charged as rape. Although Appellant was required to plead guilty to 10 addi-
tional specifications, the agreement also provided for the withdrawal and dis-
missal of six other specifications and limited the total potential sentence of
confinement to no less than 10 years and no more than 12 years when the re-
ferred charges allowed for a maximum sentence of confinement for life. In ex-
change, Appellant admitted and pleaded guilty to serious criminal misconduct,
the most serious being the two specifications of sexual assault of LCpl Alpha.
    Appellant had never met LCpl Alpha before he sexually assaulted her.
When he went to her barracks room to retrieve a belonging he had left behind
when he was previously assigned to that room, he asked if he could stay and
hang out. After LCpl Alpha agreed that he could stay and hang out, Appellant
began trying to touch and kiss her. Lance Corporal Alpha rejected his advances
and told him “no.” She attempted to push him away, but Appellant refused to
take “no” for an answer. He then removed her shorts and underwear and pen-
etrated her vulva with his penis. After penetrating her vulva with his penis,
Appellant then penetrated her vulva with his fingers and placed LCpl Alpha’s
hand on his penis until he ejaculated. Appellant acknowledged that at no time
did LCpl Alpha consent to any of these acts, nor did Appellant have any sub-
jective or objective reason to believe that she consented to any sexual activity
with him.
    Lance Corporal Alpha also testified during the Government’s case in aggra-
vation that at the time Appellant sexually assaulted her she had been at the
command for no more than a week; that Appellant was the first sergeant (E-5)
that she had met at the command; and that Appellant’s actions had a long and
lasting impact on her, causing anxiety and a loss of trust in others as well as
the Marine Corps. 25 Further evidence admitted during sentencing included the
testimony of an expert witness in forensic psychology, without objection from
the Defense, that Appellant had an “above average or moderate-high risk of
recidivism.” 26
    But LCpl Alpha was not Appellant’s only victim of sexual misconduct. After
a consensual sexual encounter with Ms. Golf, he solicited her for prostitution.
When she declined to engage in further intercourse, Appellant threatened her
with an intimate video of their sexual encounter, and ultimately extorted her
in an attempt to coerce her into more intercourse. He engaged in fraternizing
by having sexual intercourse with PFC Connor when she was new to the base.
He attempted to fraternize separately with two subordinate female Marines—

   25 R. at 168-172.

   26 R. at 177.

                                       8
                 United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                              Opinion of the Court

LCpl Bravo and PFC Monroe—and sexually harassed each of them after they
declined his invitation to fraternize. And, finally, when interviewed by NCIS
regarding his actions with LCpl Alpha, Appellant lied about engaging in sexual
acts because he was afraid of getting in trouble.
    Appellant was given a position of special trust as a non-commissioned of-
ficer in the Marine Corps. He not only violated that trust but also took ad-
vantage of it to victimize multiple Marines and a civilian. In particular, he
sexually assaulted LCpl Alpha while fully aware that she did not consent to
his actions. In extenuation and mitigation, Appellant offered service record
documents, a letter from his mother, family pictures, and his unsworn state-
ment. While Appellant did apologize to his victims, he offered no significant
mitigation for his serious criminal misconduct.
    For his offenses, Appellant agreed to and the military judge imposed seg-
mented sentences totaling 23 years and 10 months of confinement. However,
per the plea agreement, the terms of confinement will run concurrently, result-
ing in just 10 years of total confinement.
    Given that Appellant voluntarily entered into a plea agreement with the
convening authority knowing that the minimum confinement he could receive
was 10 years, and subsequently received that minimum sentence, we see no
reason to disturb this negotiated outcome. Considering the evidence in the rec-
ord, we are convinced that the sentence for each offense is correct in law and
fact, and are convinced that Appellant received the sentence he deserved.

C. Appellant is entitled to accurate records of his court-martial.
    Appellant claims, and the Government concedes, that the military judge
erred in signing an incorrect EOJ. 27 In the EOJ, the military judge did not
account for Appellant’s pleas or findings of guilty to Additional Charge VI, Ad-
ditional Charge VII, and their specifications. Additionally, though not raised
by the parties, we note that the military judge also did not account for Appel-
lant’s pleas of Not Guilty to, and the withdrawal and dismissal of, Second Ad-
ditional Charges I through III and their respective specifications. Appellant
has alleged no prejudice from the incorrect EOJ; however, Appellant is entitled
to have accurate records of his court-martial. Accordingly, we will take action
in our decretal paragraph.

    27 The Government alleges that the military judge also did not include the pleas

and findings for the Specification of Additional Charge V and we agree. As noted above,
we also will modify the findings for Specifications 1 and 2 of the Charge to reflect that
Appellant was found guilty of sexual assault without consent, a lesser included offense
of rape by force.
                                           9
                United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                             Opinion of the Court

                                III. CONCLUSION

    After careful consideration of the record and briefs of appellate counsel, we
have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and that no
error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 28 How-
ever, as noted above, the EOJ contains several errors that do not properly ac-
count for the disposition of all charges and specifications on the various charge
sheets. Although we find no prejudice, Appellant is entitled to have court-mar-
tial records that correctly reflect the content of his proceeding. 29 In accordance
with R.C.M. 1111(c)(2), we modify the EOJ and direct that it be included in the
record.
   The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

                                 FOR THE COURT:

                                 MARK K. JAMISON
                                 Clerk of Court

   28 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ.

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

                                        10
UNITED STATES                                      NMCCA NO. 202200198

       v.                                                 ENTRY
                                                           OF
Jerome G. TRUSS                                         JUDGMENT
Sergeant (E-5)
U.S. Marine Corps                                  As Modified on Appeal
                     Accused
                                                      28 December 2023

   On 10 February 2022 and 16 May 2022, the Accused was tried at Marine Corps
Base Hawaii, by a general court-martial, consisting of a military judge sitting alone.
Military Judge Melanie J. Mann presided.

                                   FINDINGS

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

The Charge:          Violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military
                     Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920.
                     Plea: Guilty by exceptions and substitutions.
                     Finding: Not Guilty of the offense of Rape, but Guilty of the
                     Lesser Included Offense of Sexual Assault without Consent.

   Specification 1: Rape on or about 22 June 2020.
                       Plea: Guilty by exceptions and substitutions.
                       Finding: Not Guilty of the Offense of Rape, but Guilty of the
                       Lesser Included Offense of Sexual Assault without Consent.

   Specification 2: Rape on or about 22 June 2020.
                       Plea: Guilty by exceptions and substitutions.
                       Finding: Not Guilty of the Offense of Rape, but Guilty of the
                       Lesser Included Offense of Sexual Assault without Consent.

   Specification 3: Abusive Sexual Contact on or about 22 June 2020.
                United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                         Modified Entry of Judgment

                       Plea: Guilty.
                       Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge I:        Violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military
                            Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920.
            Plea: Not Guilty.
            Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

   Specification 1: Sexual Assault by Bodily Harm between on or about 11
                    October 2017 and on or about 1 December 2017.
                       Plea: Not Guilty.
                       Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

   Specification 2: Sexual Assault Without Consent between on or about 3
                    October 2019 and on or about 1 January 2020.
                       Plea: Not Guilty.
                       Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

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

   Specification 1: Attempted Fraternization on or about 14 March 2021.
                       Plea: Guilty.
                       Finding: Guilty.

   Specification 2: Attempted Fraternization on or about 14 March 2021.
                       Plea: Guilty.
                       Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge III:      Violation of Article 82, Uniform Code of Military
                            Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 882.
            Plea: Guilty.
            Finding: Guilty.

                                          2
                United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                         Modified Entry of Judgment

   Specification:   Solicitation – Prostitution on or about 9 May 2021.
                    Plea: Guilty.
                    Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge IV:    Violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military
                         Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 892.
            Plea: Guilty.
            Finding: Guilty.

   Specification 1: Violation of a Regulation - Fraternization between on
                    or about 14 April 2020 and 14 June 2020.
                    Plea: Guilty.
                    Finding: Guilty.

   Specification 2: Violation of a General Order – Sexual Harassment
                    between on or about 15 March 2021 and 1 April 2021.
                    Plea: Guilty.
                    Finding: Guilty.

   Specification 3: Violation of a General Order – Sexual Harassment
                    between on or about 15 September 2019 and 20 May
                    2020.
                    Plea: Guilty.
                    Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge V:     Violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military
                         Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 907.
            Plea: Guilty.
            Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:   False Official Statement on or about 9 April 2021.
                    Plea: Guilty by exceptions and substitutions.
                    Finding: Guilty except for the words: “a. that he did not
                    record himself having sex with LCpl, L.C., U.S. Marine
                    Corps, or words to that effect which statement was totally
                    false and was then known by the said Sgt Truss to be so false;
                    c. that he has not engaged in sexual acts with LCpl N.B. U.S.
                    Marine Corps, or words to that effect which statement was
                    totally false and was then known by the said Sgt Truss to be
                    so false; and d. that he has not engaged in sexual acts with
                    with LCpl V. A., U.S. Marine Corps, or words to that effect
                    which statement was totally false and was then known by the

                                       3
                United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                         Modified Entry of Judgment

                    said Sgt Truss to be so false”; of the excepted words, Not
                    Guilty, of the Specification as excepted, Guilty.

Additional Charge VI:    Violation of Article 115, Uniform Code of Military
                         Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 915.
            Plea: Guilty.
            Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:   Communicating a Threat on or about 9 May 2021.
                    Plea: Guilty.
                    Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge VII:   Violation of Article 127, Uniform Code of Military
                         Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 927.
            Plea: Guilty.
            Finding: Guilty.

   Specification:   Extortion on or about 9 May 2021.
                    Plea: Guilty.
                    Finding: Guilty.

Second Additional Charge I:     Violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of `
                                Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920.
            Plea: Not Guilty.
            Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

   Specification:   Abusive Sexual Contact between on or about 1
                    September 2019 and on or about 15 October 2019.
                    Plea: Not Guilty.
                    Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

Second Additional Charge II:    Violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of `
                                Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 928.
            Plea: Not Guilty.
            Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

   Specification 1: Assault Consummated by a Battery between on or
                    about 1 September 2019 and on or about 15 October
                    2019.
                    Plea: Not Guilty.
                    Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

                                       4
                 United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                          Modified Entry of Judgment

   Specification 2: Assault Consummated by a Battery between on or
                    about 3 October 2019 and on or about 1 January 2020.
                     Plea: Not Guilty.
                     Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed

Second Additional Charge III: Violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of `
                              Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 880.
            Plea: Not Guilty.
            Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

   Specification:    Attempted Patronizing of a Prostitute between on or
                     about 1 September 2019 and on or about 1 December
                     2019.
                     Plea: Not Guilty.
                     Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.

                                 SENTENCE

   On 22 December 2022, a military judge sentenced the Accused to the following:
      Reduction to pay grade E-1.
      Confinement
         For Specification 1 of the Charge:
            confinement for 10 years.
         For Specification 2 of the Charge:
            confinement for 10 years.
         For Specification 3 of the Charge:
            confinement for 2 years.
         For the Specification of Additional Charge III:
            confinement for 1 month.
         For the Specification of Additional Charge V:
            confinement for 3 months.
         For the Specification of Additional Charge VI:
            confinement for 6 months.
         For the Specification of Additional Charge VII:
            confinement for one year.
         The terms of confinement will run concurrently.
      Confinement for a total of 10 years.

                                        5
              United States v. Truss, NMCCA No. 202200198
                       Modified Entry of Judgment

  Forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
  A dishonorable discharge.
The Accused shall be credited with 179 days of pretrial confinement.

                           FOR THE COURT:

                           MARK K. JAMISON
                           Clerk of Court

                                     6