Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Perkinson

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided October 24, 1983No. 42,947; NMCM 81 2544Published

1ConcurrenceEverett, Chief Judge

I

After the members of a court-martial have reached a sentence but before its announcement, they may reconsider the sentence for any purpose1; and often the members are expressly instructed concerning their power to reconsider. However, the need for instructions on reconsideration assumes that the members have reached a sentence which could lawfully be adjudged in its entirety. Where a proposed sentence is illegal because some facet of it is beyond the power of the court to adjudge, it should be disregarded as “void ad initium,” rather than reconsidered. United States v. Jones, 3 M.J. 348, 352…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United StateS v. WareUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
  2. United States v. JonesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  3. United States v. JusticeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API