Filed: May 13, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Ian M. DONELL Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 201900027 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Decided: 13 May 2019. Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Wilbur Lee, USMC. Sentence adjudged 27 September 2018 by a special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe Bay, HI, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authorit
Summary: United States Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Ian M. DONELL Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 201900027 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Decided: 13 May 2019. Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Wilbur Lee, USMC. Sentence adjudged 27 September 2018 by a special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe Bay, HI, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority..
More
United States Navy–Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals
_________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Ian M. DONELL
Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps
Appellant
No. 201900027
Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.
Decided: 13 May 2019.
Military Judge:
Lieutenant Colonel Wilbur Lee, USMC.
Sentence adjudged 27 September 2018 by a special court-martial
convened at Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe Bay, HI, consisting of a
military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening
authority: confinement for 6 months, reduction to E-1; and a bad-
conduct discharge.
For Appellant:
Lieutenant Colonel Lee C. Kindlon, USMCR.
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, LAWRENCE, and GERDING
Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. Donell, No. 201900027
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