Legal Opinion

United States v. Cunningham

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review

Decided September 29, 1978No. 78 0925PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BAUM, Judge:

Appellant, citing United States v. Fife, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 218, 43 C.M.R. 58 (1970), has summarily assigned as error that the court-martial lacked jurisdiction because appellant did not submit his request to be tried by military judge until after findings. In this case the judge, during an Article 39(a), 10 U.S.C. § 839(a) session, accepted appellant’s plea of guilty and entered findings as authorized by paragraph 53d, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition), and Section 0113, JAG Manual. Thereafter, but still prior to assembly of the court, the judge advised…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. DeanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
  2. United States v. FifeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. FordU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1981
  2. States v. MillerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1979
  3. United States v. SmithNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 1995
  4. United States v. JamesU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API