United States v. Monod De Froideville
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
2Per curiam
Contrary to his pleas, accused was convicted of absence without leave and missing movement in violation of Articles 86 and 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 887.
Accused’s appellate counsel, citing United States v. Gillchrist, 50 C.M.R. 832 (A.F.C.M.R.1975), contend that the military judge erred in finding accused guilty of missing movement. We disagree. In Gillchrist, we held a plea of guilty improvident because it made little difference which of several commercial flights the accused embarked on to travel to Turkey. Here, the accused was twice assigned a seat…
3Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. FrederickUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- United States v. JohnsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1953
- United States v. St. AnnU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. McMahonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1977
- United States v. GeorgeU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1979
4Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. GrahamUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. GonzalezArmy Court of Criminal Appeals · 2004
- United States v. StroudU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1988
- United States v. GrahamU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1982