Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Kinsley, A.F.C.C.A. (2014)
United States v. Kinsley, A.F.C.C.A. (2014)
UNITED STATES
v.
Airman First Class RYAN O. KINSLEY
United States Air Force
ACM S32135
19 May 2014
Sentence adjudged 1 April 2013 by SPCM convened at Whiteman
Air Force Base, Missouri. Military Judge: Mark L. Allred (sitting alone).
Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days,
forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E-1.
Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Zaven T. Saroyan.
Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen;
Lieutenant Colonel C. Taylor Smith; Major Erika L. Sleger; and
Major Warren; and Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.
Before
ROAN, HELGET, and WEBER
Appellate Military Judges
This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release.
PER CURIAM:
A special court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted the
appellant, in accordance with his pleas, of one specification of larceny of private property
of a value more than $500, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 921. The
appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days, forfeiture
of $1,000.00 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E-1. The convening authority
approved the adjudged sentence.
Before this Court, the appellant asserts that his trial defense counsel provided
ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to object to the lack of foundation for
ACM S32135
ACM S32135
ACM S32135
be punishing the [appellant] for any uncharged misconduct to the extent that he might
have been guilty of lies or false official statements. I wont consider it for that purpose.
Applying the Strickland test, the appellant has failed to show either that his trial
defense counsel were deficient, or that any deficiency resulted in prejudice. Accordingly,
we find the appellants trial defense counsel was not ineffective.
Finally, we have considered the principles of United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236
(C.A.A.F. 1997), and have determined that we do not need to order an evidentiary
hearing as we can decide any factual dispute without further fact finding.
Conclusion
The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and no error
materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Articles 59(a)
and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and
sentence, are
AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
STEVEN LUCAS
Clerk of the Court
ACM S32135