Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Caldwell

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided December 27, 2011No. NMCCA 201000557Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge PERLAK,

joined by Judge PAYTON-O’BRIEN, (concurring in part and dissenting in part):

I respectfully dissent from so much of the majority opinion as affirms the finding of guilty for the charge and specification under Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 921, larceny.

We review a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion and questions of law arising from the guilty plea de novo. If there is a substantial basis in either law or fact for questioning the plea, then we may set aside a finding of guilty based on the plea. United States v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. CareUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
  2. United States v. InabinetteCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2008
  3. United States v. JacksonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1955
  4. United States v. RileyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2003
  5. United States v. FergusonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API