Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Anthony

United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2024 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawMilitary JusticeAppellate ReviewEntry of JudgmentArticles 59 and 66 UCMJRule for Courts-Martial 1111(c)(2)Entry of Judgmentspecial court-martial

Facts

At a special court-martial, Anthony was convicted pursuant to guilty pleas of desertion, larceny of gasoline valued over $1,000, and one specification of obstruction of justice; other charges and specifications were withdrawn and dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. The military judge sentenced him to reduction to E-6, confinement for six months, a $1,000 fine, and a bad-conduct discharge, with 133 days of pretrial confinement credit. On appellate review, Anthony did not challenge factual sufficiency or assign any error. The appellate court noted that the Entry of Judgment did not accurately reflect the adjudged sentence.

Issue

When the findings and sentence are otherwise correct in law and fact and no material prejudice is shown, may the appellate court modify an inaccurate Entry of Judgment so the record correctly reflects the proceedings? Also, should the findings and sentence be affirmed under Articles 59 and 66 on this record?

Rule

If the appellate court determines that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the appellant's substantial rights occurred, it may affirm them. Even absent prejudice, an appellant is entitled to court-martial records that correctly reflect the proceedings, and under Rule for Courts-Martial 1111(c)(2) the appellate court may modify the Entry of Judgment and direct that the corrected version be included in the record.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a special court-martial in San Diego, Mateo Ruiz pleaded guilty to two offenses and received 90 days of confinement and a reprimand. On appeal, he filed no assignments of error, and the appellate court found the findings and sentence correct in law and fact, but noticed that the Entry of Judgment omitted the reprimand entirely.

What is the best disposition by the appellate court?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when the appellate court determines the findings are correct in law, the sentence is correct in law and fact, and no materially prejudicial error occurred, it may affirm them. Even without prejudice, the appellant is entitled to records that correctly reflect the proceeding, so the court may modify the inaccurate Entry of Judgment and direct inclusion of the corrected version in the record. (Derived from United States v. Anthony (n.d.).)