United States v. John
U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
CEDARBURG, Chief Judge:
We have examined the record of trial, the two assignments of error, and the Government’s reply thereto and have concluded that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant was committed.
Despite a full providence inquiry by the military judge, in accordance with United States v. Green, 1 M.J. 453 (C.M.A.1976), United States v. Elmore, 1 M.J. 262 (C.M.A.1976), and United States v. Care, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 535, 40 C.M.R. 247 (1969), appellant, on review by this Court, asserts that his…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. CareUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
- United States v. GreenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- United States v. DonohewUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
- United States v. ElmoreUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- United States v. EckU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. GriffinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. RobertsU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1982
- United States v. RobertsU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1982