United States v. Cantu
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
KASTL, Senior Judge:
In an excellent brief, appellate defense counsel assign several errors for our consideration. We affirm.1
I
The accused argues that he was denied due process by a 564 day delay between the first possible date of the earliest offense charged and the date of trial. We are satisfied, based on the materials set forth in the record, that the accused was not deprived of his due process rights.2 *536United States v. Rachels, 6 M.J. 232 (C.M.A. 1979) (over 24 months’ delay between committing last offense and date of trial); United States v. Nelson, 5 M.J. 189, 191 (C.M.A.1978)…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. MarionSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. LovascoSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. MacDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. TippitUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. AmerineU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1984
- United States v. LaneU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1984
- United States v. HeriotUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983