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
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“and a video” in Specification 1 of the Charge were withdrawn and dismissed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