United States v. Hudson
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
DONAHUE, Judge:
Consistent with his guilty pleas, the appellant was convicted of larceny and forgery in violation of Articles 121 and 123, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 921 and 923, respectively.
I
In his first assignment of error the appellant challenges whether the court-martial had jurisdiction to try him.
On 20 February 1975 the appellant, a member of the Army National Guard, was ordered to Active Duty for Training (ADT). The orders, pursuant to the authority of 10 *959U.S.C. § 672(d) and AR 135-200, were with the consent of the appellant and the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. RussoUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
- United States v. MoselyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- Morse v. BoswellDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1968
- Morse v. BoswellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968
- Rosee v. Board of TradeSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. NewsomeU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1992
- United States v. WhiteU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1984
- United States v. RigsbyU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. ReynaudUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. BurtonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1983