United States v. Wirth

OPINION OF THE COURT ON FURTHER REVIEW

HOLDAWAY, Chief Judge:

This case is before the court for the second time. When first reviewed the case was returned for a limited hearing to resolve some ambiguity concerning the providentness of appellant’s plea, more specifically his understanding of the pretrial agreement. See United States v. Wirth, 24 M.J. 536 (A.C.M.R.1987). The limited hearing was held; the appellant and his trial defense counsel testified extensively concerning the circumstances of his guilty plea. In this regard the testimony was contradictory. Trial defense counsel testified that…