Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Kevin GALANPEREZ Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 201800337 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Decided: 28 February 2019. Military Judge: Major Keaton H. Harrell, USMC. Sentence adjudged 15 August 2018 by a special court-martial con- vened at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction
Summary: United States Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Kevin GALANPEREZ Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 201800337 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Decided: 28 February 2019. Military Judge: Major Keaton H. Harrell, USMC. Sentence adjudged 15 August 2018 by a special court-martial con- vened at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction ..
More
United States Navy–Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals
_________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Kevin GALANPEREZ
Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps
Appellant
No. 201800337
Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Decided: 28 February 2019.
Military Judge:
Major Keaton H. Harrell, USMC.
Sentence adjudged 15 August 2018 by a special court-martial con-
vened at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge
sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction to
E-1, a fine of $1,400.00, confinement for 6 months, and a bad-conduct
discharge.
For Appellant:
Commander R.D. Evans, JAGC, USN.
For Appellee:
Brian K. Keller, Esq.
_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under
NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
_________________________
Before HUTCHISON, TANG, and ATTANASIO
Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. Galanperez, No. 201800337
PER CURIAM:
After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are cor-
rect in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s
substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are
AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
RODGER A. DREW, JR.
Clerk of Court
2