Stephen D. Evans Intelligence Specialist First Class (E-6), U.S. Navy Convicted Sex Offender Indecent Acts With A Child

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Children > Stephen D. Evans

Name: Stephen D. Evans

Case: United States v. Evans No.NMCCA 200401405

Date Of Appeal: July 21, 2005

Plea: Guilty

Charges: Indecent Acts With A Child, Child Pornography

Military Branch: U.S. Navy

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? Yes

The appellant was tried before a general court-martial composed of a military judge, sitting alone. Consistent with his pleas, the military judge convicted the appellant of making a false official statement, three specifications of committing indecent acts on divers occasions upon a female under the age of 16 years old, and receiving child pornography on divers occasions. As a result, the appellant stands convicted of violating Articles 107 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 907 and 934, and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. The adjudged and approved sentence consists of confinement for 28 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. In taking action on 8 September 2004, the convening authority (CA) suspended all confinement in excess of 10 years for a period of 2 years. This action was taken to comply with the terms of the pretrial agreement.

The appellant has raised a single assignment of error, alleging error in the staff judge advocate's recommendation (SJAR). The appellant alleges that the staff judge advocate (SJA) erred in advising the convening authority that the appellant's character of service was "unsatisfactory." We have reviewed the record of trial, the appellant’s brief and assignments of error, and the Government’s response. Following that review, we conclude that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and that no error was committed that was materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.

To enable the CA to make an informed decision of what action he should take in relation to a particular case the SJA should advise the CA of an accused's character of service without regard to the current conviction. Other portions of the SJAR report the facts of the conviction to the CA. The appellant raised this issue before the SJA, and the CA was aware of the appellant's concerns at the time he took action on the case. In fact the CA specifically addressed the issue in the Action.

We have no doubt that the CA made an informed decision. Furthermore, the appellant was given an opportunity to comment on the Addendum to the SJAR and did so on 25 August 2004. In that response, the appellant did not object to the new characterization of service. Because this issue was fully vetted before the CA, we conclude that the appellant has made no colorable showing of possible prejudice as a result of the SJA's erroneous characterization. United States v. Wheelus, 49 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. 1998). Accordingly, we decline to grant relief.

The findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved by the convening authority, are affirmed.