Filed: Mar. 31, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Before, HOLDEN, HOFFMAN, and SULLIVAN, Appellate Military Judges
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private E1 MATTHEW R.WATTS, United States Army, Appellant
ARMY 20070508
Headquarters, Fort Hood, Alan L. Cook, Military Judge
For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel William E. Cassara, JA; Major William F., Fischbach III, JA.31 March 2008
SUMMARY DECISION,
Per Curiam:
Upon review of this case, submitted on the merits for consideration, under Article 66, Un
Summary: UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Before, HOLDEN, HOFFMAN, and SULLIVAN, Appellate Military Judges
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private E1 MATTHEW R.WATTS, United States Army, Appellant
ARMY 20070508
Headquarters, Fort Hood, Alan L. Cook, Military Judge
For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel William E. Cassara, JA; Major William F., Fischbach III, JA.31 March 2008
SUMMARY DECISION,
Per Curiam:
Upon review of this case, submitted on the merits for consideration, under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.
More
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Before
HOLDEN, HOFFMAN, and SULLIVAN
Appellate Military Judges
UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Private E1 MATTHEW R. WATTS
United States Army, Appellant
ARMY 20070508
Headquarters, Fort Hood
Alan L. Cook, Military Judge
For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel William E. Cassara, JA; Major William F.
Fischbach III, JA.
For Appellee: Pursuant to A.C.C.A. Rule 15.2, no response filed.
31 March 2008
----------------------------
SUMMARY DECISION
----------------------------
Per Curiam:
Upon review of this case, submitted on the merits for consideration
under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866
[hereinafter UCMJ], we note appellant’s providence inquiry does not support
his plea to all of the disrespectful language charged in the Specification
of Charge II. There is sufficient evidence to support the remaining
language of the Specification. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of
guilty to and dismiss only so much of the Specification of Charge II as
states, “I am going to kick your ass.” The remainder finding of guilty of
the specification is affirmed. Reassessing the sentence of the basis of
the error noted, and the entire record, and applying the tenets of United
States v. Sales,
22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v. Moffeit,
63
M.J. 40, 43 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (Baker, J., concurring), the remaining findings
and sentence are affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court