Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Steck

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review

Decided January 31, 1980No. NCM 79 0902Published

1ConcurrenceDunbar, Senior Judge

In my opinion the majority is further complicating an already complicated situation. They are superimposing a new set of rules and guidelines dictating when revision and limited rehearing sessions are procedurally valid to cure pleas declared improvident as a matter of law by the holdings in United States v. King, 3 M.J. 458 (C.M.A.1977).

In the instant case, the majority holds that proceedings in revision may cure a defective plea bargain inquiry. At the same time, it is asserted that the procedure of this particular revision proceeding was incorrect because the accused was not advised of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. United States v. CareUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
  3. United States v. KingUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  4. United States v. WilliamsonU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1977
  5. United States v. GreggU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1978

3 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