Nicholas J. Andrade, a Lance Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, was convicted at a general court-martial before a military judge sitting alone at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The sentence in the Entry of Judgment included reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement for 33 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The opinion does not describe the underlying charged conduct. On appeal, the record was reviewed without any assigned error.
Issue
Whether the findings and sentence were correct in law and fact and whether any error materially prejudicial to Appellant's substantial rights occurred under Articles 59 and 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Rule
Under Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, the appellate court reviews the record to determine whether the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and whether any error materially prejudicial to the appellant's substantial rights occurred.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Sergeant Elena Ruiz was convicted by a general court-martial at a naval installation near San Diego, California. On appeal to the service court, her counsel filed the case on its merits without identifying any specific assignment of error.
What is the most accurate statement about the service court's review authority in this posture?
Explanation. Under Articles 59 and 66 as applied in the majority opinion, even when a case is submitted without assignment of error, the appellate court carefully considers the record to determine whether the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and whether any error materially prejudicial to the appellant's substantial rights occurred. If satisfied on those points, it may affirm.