United States v. Knabe
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
2Per curiam
In the case at bar, appellant challenges the staff judge advocate’s review as being prejudicially erroneous vis-a-vis sentencing. That sentencing procedure is complicated by the convergence of two unusual conditions: (1) the adjudged sentence included a contingent portion-a $5,000.00 fine or, in lieu of payment of the fine, confinement at hard labor for one year; and (2) the staff judge advocate’s review to the convening authority incorrectly advised that the immediate confinement at hard labor ran concurrently with the contingent confinement.
The relevant facts of the case are these:…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. MartinezUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- United States v. FinlayU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
4Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. RascoeU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1990
- United States v. ValeadU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1990
- United States v. BrooksU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1991