The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld the conviction of Private First Class Ronald J. Benton for attempting to escape custody. The court ruled on June 5, 2026, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, which stems from an incident that occurred while Benton was under restriction due to previous misconduct. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standards regarding custody and escape attempts within military law.
Benton’s case began when he faced disciplinary actions for unauthorized absences from his unit. In February 2024, his commanding officer placed him under restriction, which limited his movements and prohibited him from operating a vehicle. However, Benton violated this order by picking up a fellow Marine who was intoxicated. Following this violation, he was ordered into pretrial confinement.
On March 18, 2024, Benton was taken into custody by brig escorts for further violations of his restriction orders. During a medical screening at a base clinic, Benton attempted to flee by running out of the clinic and into a waiting car. He was stopped before he could leave the area. This incident led to his charges of attempting to escape custody and breaching the restrictions placed on him.
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case after Benton appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his charges. He raised three main points in his appeal: the legality of his custody, the factual sufficiency of the evidence regarding his escape attempt, and the breach of restriction.
The court, which included Judges Daly, Gross, and de Groot, found that the evidence was sufficient to support Benton’s conviction for attempting to escape custody. The court noted, “A rational fact finder could find all the elements of the offense of attempt to escape custody beyond a reasonable doubt.” The judges concluded that Benton’s apprehension was lawful, despite his claims to the contrary.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that the military judge had determined that Benton’s commanding officer had acted improperly regarding pretrial confinement but had not ruled that the custody itself was illegal. The court stated, “We will not use the military judge’s ruling regarding the illegality of pretrial confinement to now find Appellant’s apprehension was illegal.” This distinction was crucial in affirming the conviction.
The court also addressed Benton’s argument regarding the factual sufficiency of the evidence, stating that they were not convinced that the finding of guilty was against the weight of the evidence. They acknowledged that Benton had made a specific showing of a deficiency of proof but ultimately upheld the trial court's findings.
This ruling has implications for military personnel facing similar circumstances. It reinforces the legal standards surrounding custody and escape attempts and clarifies the responsibilities of commanding officers in enforcing restrictions and custody orders. The decision also highlights the importance of following proper procedures in military law enforcement.
Going forward, this ruling may serve as a reference for future cases involving escape attempts and custody issues within the military justice system. Benton’s conviction stands, and he is currently serving a sentence of 14 days confinement, with credit for 11 days already served.
Details regarding whether Benton plans to appeal this ruling or if there are related pending cases were not available in the court filing.