United States v. Grindstaff
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
1Per curiam
We have examined the record of trial, the four assignments of error,1 and the Government’s response thereto. We conclude that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant was committed. A brief discussion of the issues is appropriate.
Assignment of Error I
Appellant first contends that his sentence, which included an unsuspended bad-conduct discharge, is inappropriately severe. However, he committed an assault consummated by a battery with a knife on another Marine. In his own words, this was an…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Morrison v. OlsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Weiss v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United States v. CarpenterUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993
- United States v. RyderCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. AkbarCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2015
- United States v. Master Sergeant TIMOTHY B. HENNISArmy Court of Criminal Appeals · 2016
- United States v. ParkerNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2012
- United States v. BrewickNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 1997
- Al Bahlul v. United StatesSpecial Court under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act · 2019
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.