United States v. Harrison

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM 39067 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Coury W. HARRISON Staff Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 20 October 2017 ________________________ Military Judge: Donald R. Eller, Jr. (arraignment); Christopher S. Leavey. Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 5 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. Sentence ad- judged 13 January 2016 by GCM convened at Royal Air Force Milden- hall, United Kingdom. For Appellant: Major Allen S. Abrams, USAF. For Appellee: Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF; Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire. Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and MINK, 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 ________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.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: The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er- ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles United States v. Harrison, No. ACM 39067 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 KATHLEEN M. POTTER Acting Clerk of the Court *We note that the convening authority’s memorandum dated 4 February 2016, denying Appellant’s request for deferment and waiver of forfeitures and deferment of reduction in rank, failed to articulate the reasons for the denial of Appellant’s request for defer- ment of forfeitures and reduction in rank as required by Rule for Courts-Martial 1101(c)(3). See United States v. Jalos, No. ACM 39138, 2017 CCA LEXIS 607, at *5–6 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 5 Sep. 2017) (unpub. op.). However, our review of the record of trial reveals no colorable showing of possible prejudice as a result of the convening authority’s error and we conclude that no relief is warranted. 2