Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Francis, 201800178 (2018)

Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Number: 201800178 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _ No. 201800178 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. RYAN F. FRANCIS Hospitalman (E-3), U.S. Navy Appellant _ Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: Commander William H. Weiland, JAGC, U.S. Navy. For Appellant: Captain Kimberly D. Hinson, JAGC, USNR. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq. _ Decided 30 August 2018 _ Before HUTCHISON, TANG, and HINES, Appellate Military Judges _ After careful
More
         U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS
             C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS
                        _________________________

                            No. 201800178
                        _________________________

                 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Appellee
                                    v.

                         RYAN F. FRANCIS
                     Hospitalman (E-3), U.S. Navy
                              Appellant
                       _________________________

 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander William H. Weiland, JAGC, U.S. Navy.
    For Appellant: Captain Kimberly D. Hinson, JAGC, USNR.
                For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.
                     _________________________

                        Decided 30 August 2018
                        _________________________

    Before HUTCHISON, TANG, and HINES, Appellate Military Judges
                      _________________________

       After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assign-
ment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the con-
vening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §
866(c). The supplemental court-martial order shall reflect that the words
“and a video” in Specification 1 of the Charge were withdrawn and dismissed
without prejudice, to ripen into prejudice upon completion of appellate
review, and the appellant was found guilty of Specification 1 of the Charge.


                                  FOR THE COURT




                                  RODGER A. DREW, JR.
                                  Clerk of Court

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer