Legal Opinion

United States v. Crooks

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided September 28, 1977No. CM 435362PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

COSTELLO, Judge:

Appellant was convicted by a military jury of aggravated assault in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 928. His initial assertion of error did not state a basis for granting relief, but supplementary pleadings have raised issues warranting discussion.

Appellate defense counsel moved for leave to file three affidavits with a Supplemental Assignment of Error alleging that “The appellant was inadequately represented at his court-martial.” In those affidavits, appellant charged his trial defense counsel with failure to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. United States v. FlintUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
  3. United States v. LarneardUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  4. In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Larry C. High v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent, Washington State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  5. United States v. HerndonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1976

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. AubinU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API