United States v. Hancock
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
In this case, submitted to us on the record by counsel, we perceive an error in the convening authority’s action on the sentence. The sentence adjudged included the provision “to forfeit all pay and allowances.” There was a plea bargain pursuant to which the convening authority had agreed “[n]ot to approve any forfeitures in excess of three hundred dollars ($300) per month.” Accordingly, in his action the convening authority approved “only so much of the sentence as provides for . . . forfeiture of three hundred dollars ($300.00) pay per month.” No period of time was…
3Cases cited1 opinion
- United States v. RiosUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1964
4Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. HarrisU S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals · 2008
- United States v. GebhartU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1991
- United States v. BrooksU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1983
- United States v. FosterU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1994
- United States v. FosterU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.