United States v. Dolbow
United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
PEARSON, Senior Judge:
In this case, we remind military judges that if offenses are separate for findings, they are separate for sentencing; likewise, if they merge for sentencing, they merge for findings. R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(C); United States v. Morrison, 41 M.J. 482 (1995); United States v. Lenoir, 39 M.J. 751 (A.F.C.M.R.), pet. denied, 40 M.J. 276 (C.M.A.1994). Thus, a military judge should not conclude that offenses are multiplicious, that is but one offense, for sentencing unless the judge first determines they are multiplicious for findings, in which case, the judge…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
- United States v. WilliamsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1968
- United States v. AlbrechtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
- United States v. LloydUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1995
- United States v. LenoirU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. SimoyUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1996
- United States v. ErbyUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1997
- United States v. RobersonUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1997
- United States v. EarleUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1997