U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM 39470 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Brandon L. SNYDER Major (O-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 15 April 2020 ________________________ Military Judge: J. Wesley Moore (arraignment); Vance H. Spath. Approved sentence: Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for 6 months, and a reprimand. Sentence ad- judged 11 January 2018 by GCM convened at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. For Appellant: Major Benjamin H. DeYoung, USAF; Major Jarett F. Merk, USAF; Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr., Esquire. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel G. Matt Osborn, USAF; Major Zachary T. West, USAF; Captain Peter F. Kellett, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire. Before MINK, LEWIS, and POSCH, Appellate Military Judges. Judge POSCH delivered the opinion of the court, in which Senior Judge MINK and Judge LEWIS joined. ________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4. ________________________ United States v. Snyder, No. ACM 39470 POSCH, Judge: A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of sexual assault in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920. 1 The conviction concerns Appellant’s sexual act upon SB, a female friend of a coworker’s daugh- ter. 2 Appellant was sentenced to a dismissal, confinement for six months, for- feiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for six months, and a reprimand. The con- vening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. Appellant raises 22 issues on appeal and we consider one additional issue. This opinion addresses 13 assignments of error, nine issues that Appellant per- sonally raises combined as one assignment of error, 3 and one additional issue raised by the court: (1) whether the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the Specification of the Charge fails to state an offense because it fails to allege any mens rea element; (3) whether Appellant was denied the right to be represented at trial by retained civilian counsel of choice in violation of the Sixth Amendment; 4 (4) whether Appellant was denied the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial; (5) whether the rea- sonable doubt instruction the military judge gave was constitutionally defec- tive; (6) whether Appellant was denied the Sixth Amendment right to confront SB after she read an unsworn victim impact statement in presentencing; (7) whether the military judge abused his discretion in precluding Appellant from including attachments to his written unsworn statement in violation of Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1001(c)(1)(B); (8) whether Appellant was deprived of due process and equal protection under the law in violation of the Fifth 1 All references in this opinion to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.), and Military Rules of Evidence are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals