Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Hill

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided March 30, 1979No. SPCM 13734Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDribben, Judge

I

Appellant’s pleas of guilty were entered pursuant to his pretrial agreement with the convening authority. A provision of this instrument provides in part that the agreement will be automatically cancelled if appellant’s pleas to the instant charges and specifications are changed from guilty to not guilty by appellant or on his behalf after trial in any rehearing directed by the convening authority. I concur with majority’s conclusion that appellant’s pleas were not rendered improvident by inclusion of this provision in the agreement. United States v. Stoutmire, 5 M.J 724, 726 (A.C.M.R.1978).1

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. GreenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
  2. United States v. MahanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
  3. United States v. ThomasU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
  4. United States v. PriceU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
  5. United States v. ReedyU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1977

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API