Action potpourri

  1. McCray v. Grande , 38 M.J. 657 (A.C.M.R. 1993). Sentence, for purposes of commutation, begins to run on date announced.
  2. United States v. Foster , 40 M.J. 552 (A.C.M.R. 1994). Court does not have to treat ambiguous action ($214 per month) as forfeiture for one month; may return to CA for clarification of intent.
  3. United States v. Muirhead , 48 M.J. 527 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998). Accusedsentenced to “forfeit all pay and allowances, which is $854.40 for 2 years,” and CA approved the same. Held: ambiguous sentence. CA under RCM 1107(d)(1) can return case to court for clarification of ambiguous sentence; if he does not, he can only approve a sentence no more severe than the unambiguous portion. Rather than return to CA, the NMCCA simply affirmed the unambiguous dollar amount. M. Post-trial deals. United States v. Olean , 59 M.J. 561 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2002). CA authorized to enter into post-trial deals where a rehearing is impracticable. In the case at bar, the CA agreed to approve a sentence of no punishment, dismiss the specifications which were set aside and returned for a rehearing, process the appellant for administrative discharge, and recommend a general discharge. In exchange, the appellant agreed to waive personal appearance before the separation board, remain on appellate leave, and waive any right to accrued pay, allowances, or travel entitlements.

Borderline Personality Disorder & False Accusations in Military Sexual Assault Cases

YouTube video

Scroll to Top