United States v. Mendoza
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
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
- United States v. WheelusCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
- United States v. GosserCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2006
- United States v. LowerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
- United States v. MendozaNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2007
3Cited by15 opinions
- United States v. BarryCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2018
- United States v. Del ToroUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 2018
- United States v. GriegoUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 2015
- United States v. LittlejohnNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2017
- United States v. MedeirosCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.