Legal Opinion

United States v. Settle

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided August 29, 1991No. ACM S28501PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The appellant1 submits two related errors: the first alleges that the record fails to show the accused was served with copies of the staff judge advocate’s recommendation and its addendum, and the second urges that the convening authority failed to consider defense submissions before taking action. We find merit in neither.

Sentence in this case was adjudged after • the effective date of a change to R.C.M. 1106(f)(1). The rule now requires a copy of the staff judge advocate’s (SJA’s) post-trial recommendation to be served on the accused as well as the defense counsel. See Article 60(d), UCMJ,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. HilowUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1991
  2. United States v. NarineUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  3. United States v. AndersonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
  4. United States v. RolandU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1990
  5. United States v. WilsonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. MarshU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1992
  2. United States v. FairchildU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991
  3. United States v. PlottU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1992
  4. United States v. KnightU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API