The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld the convictions of Colton B. Blevins, a Culinary Specialist First Class Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy, for multiple offenses including sexual abuse of a child and possession of child pornography. The court's decision, issued on October 26, 2026, affirms the lower court's ruling and emphasizes the seriousness of the charges against Blevins, who was sentenced to 10 years in confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

Blevins's case originated from allegations that he engaged in sexual communications with a 14-year-old girl, identified in court documents as “Amanda,” over a two-year period. The court's ruling is significant as it reinforces the military's commitment to addressing sexual offenses and protecting minors from exploitation.

The case began in August 2020 when Blevins, then 33 years old, initiated contact with Amanda through the website teen-chat.org, posing as a 17-year-old. The relationship escalated to include explicit conversations, photo exchanges, and video chats of a sexual nature. The relationship was discovered when Amanda's foster mother overheard a conversation and subsequently reported it to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS).

During the investigation, Blevins was interviewed by NCIS agents in December 2022. He waived his right to remain silent and made several incriminating admissions regarding his communications with Amanda and his interest in child pornography. The court noted that Blevins acknowledged his involvement in sending sexually explicit materials to Amanda and expressed awareness of the legal implications of his actions.

In February 2025, a general court-martial found Blevins guilty of three specifications of sexual abuse of a child, three specifications of obstructing justice, one specification of indecent conduct, and six specifications of producing, receiving, or possessing child pornography. His sentence included a reduction in rank to E-3, a reprimand, confinement for 10 years, and a dishonorable discharge.

In his appeal, Blevins raised five assignments of error, arguing that the military judge erred in denying his motions to suppress statements made to NCIS and evidence seized from his computer. He contended that the military judge failed to properly inform him of the nature of the charges against him during the interrogation and that the evidence obtained from his electronic devices should not have been admissible in court.

Judge Davis, writing for the court, found no prejudicial error in the military judge's decisions. The court ruled that the rights advisement provided to Blevins during the interrogation complied with legal standards, stating, "the rights advisement in this case fully served the purpose of Article 31(b) warnings of ‘orient[ing] [the accused] to the transaction or incident in which he is allegedly involved.'" The court concluded that Blevins was adequately informed of the nature of the allegations against him and that his admissions were voluntary.

Regarding the motion to suppress evidence, the court determined that the military judge did not abuse her discretion in allowing the evidence obtained from Blevins's computer and hard drive. The court emphasized that the NCIS had probable cause to conduct the search based on the totality of the circumstances, including Blevins's own admissions about his interest in child pornography.

The court also addressed Blevins's argument that the charge of indecent conduct was preempted by another statute related to sexual offenses against children. The court ruled that while the charged offense under Article 134, UCMJ, shared elements with Article 120b, UCMJ, there was no clear congressional intent to preclude the prosecution of indecent conduct under Article 134.

This ruling has implications for military justice, particularly in how sexual offenses involving minors are prosecuted. The court's decision reinforces the importance of protecting children from sexual exploitation and upholding the integrity of the military justice system.

Looking forward, Blevins's case may not be over. While the court has affirmed his convictions, there remains the possibility of further appeals to higher military courts or even federal courts, depending on the legal strategies pursued by his defense team. The court filing did not specify whether Blevins plans to appeal further.