Charles M. Bricker
Aviation Machinist's Mate First Class (E-6), U.S. Navy
Convicted Sex Offender
Indecent Acts With A Minor Child
Name: Charles M. Bricker
Case: United States v.Bricker No. NMCCA 200001970
Date Of Appeal: June 27, 2005
Plea: Guilty
Charges: Indecent Acts With A Minor Child
Military Branch: U.S. Navy
Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO
The appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of a military judge, sitting alone. Contrary to his pleas, the appellant was convicted of committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 years, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934. The appellant was sentenced to confinement for 18 months and a bad-conduct discharge. The military judge recommended that the convening authority suspend the bad-conduct discharge and confinement in excess of 5 months for 3 years and, if requested, defer and suspend automatic forfeitures.
The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence and, except for the bad-conduct discharge, ordered the punishment executed.
After carefully considering the record of trial, the appellant’s three assignments of error, and the Government's automatic forfeitures. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence and, except for the bad-conduct discharge, ordered the punishment executed.
In the appellant’s first assignment of error, he asserts that the Government failed to offer factually and legally sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had any indecent intent towards the victim. The appellant avers that this court should set aside his conviction. We disagree
We have carefully examined all of the evidence admitted on the merits. We conclude that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient on each and every element of the offense of committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 years. We are therefore convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant is guilty of this offense. As such, we decline to grant relief.
At the time of trial, the appellant had 17 years of service in the Navy. The appellant insists that his trial defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he failed to investigate and present the economic impact a punitive discharge would have on the appellant after 17 years of military service, and failed to call sufficient witnesses to testify for him. Specifically, the appellant insists that his trial defense counsel was constitutionally deficient in that he failed to present sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, mitigation, and extenuation.
The record of trial well-supports the appropriateness of the appellant’s sentence. We are confident that the appellant received the individualized consideration required based on the seriousness of his offense and the nature of his character--that is all that the law requires. The appellant’s assignment of error amounts to nothing more than a request for clemency, which is the prerogative of the convening authority. Healy, 26 M.J. at 395-96; R.C.M. 1107(b). In this regard, the convening authority considered the appellant’s request for clemency before taking action on the appellant’s case. As such, we decline to grant relief.
An Unofficial Site
Of United States Military
Sexual Offender
Conviction Records
Not Associated With The U.S. Military Or Government
An Unofficial Site
Of
United States Military
Sexual Offender
Conviction Records
Not Associated With The U.S. Military Or Government
