Legal Opinion

United States v. Mendoza

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided October 28, 2008No. 08-0246/NAPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judge STUCKY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted review to determine whether a convening authority may take a new action on remand without receiving a new staff judge advocate’sflegal officer’s recommendation (SJAR/LOR) and affording the accused an opportunity to present additional matters under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105. We hold that a new action requires a new SJAR/LOR under R.C.M. 1106 and the opportunity for the accused to submit additional matters under R.C.M. 1105. 1

I. Facts

In exchange for the convening authority’s agreement to cap his sentence, Appellant pled…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. WheelusCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
  2. United States v. GosserCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2006
  3. United States v. LowerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
  4. United States v. MendozaNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2007

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. United States v. BarryCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2018
  2. United States v. Del ToroUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 2018
  3. United States v. GriegoUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 2015
  4. United States v. LittlejohnNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2017
  5. United States v. MedeirosCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2012

10 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