United States v. Thomas

United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2025 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawMilitary JusticeAppellate Reviewcourt-martialmilitary appealArticles 59 and 66findings affirmedsentence affirmed

Facts

Appellant, Lance Corporal Daria J. Thomas, was convicted at a general court-martial tried at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California. The court-martial was before a military judge sitting alone. The Entry of Judgment included reduction to E-1, confinement for eighteen months, and a dishonorable discharge. On appeal, the case was submitted without any assigned error.

Issue

Whether, on appellate review under Articles 59 and 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the findings and sentence were correct in law and fact and whether any error materially prejudicial to Appellant's substantial rights occurred.

Rule

Under Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, the appellate court may affirm the findings and sentence when, after careful consideration of the record, it 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.

🔒

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.

A sailor convicted at a general court-martial in Norfolk, Virginia appeals to the service appellate court. His counsel files no assigned errors, and after reviewing the full record the court concludes the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to his substantial rights occurred.

What is the most appropriate appellate disposition?

Explanation. Affirmance is proper when, after careful consideration of the record, 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. The absence of assigned error does not itself prevent affirmance.