Legal Opinion
United States v. Goddard
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
Decided September 5, 1997No. NMCM 95 01179PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WYNNE, Judge:
We have examined the record of trial, the assignments of error,1 and the Government’s reply thereto. We conclude that Assignments of Error I, II, III, and IV, as regards guilt, have no merit. On the other hand, Assignment of Error V, while it does not directly hit the mark, leads us to conclude that the military judge improperly sentenced the appellant based on offenses other than those properly charged and established by the evidence presented. See United States v. Loving, 41 M.J. 213,297 (1994).
With the exception of surplusage, the findings of the trial court are correct in law…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- United States v. TurnerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
- United States v. LovingCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1994
- United States v. GarciaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996
- United States v. PalmiterUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
- United States v. DearUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1994
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. CarsonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2002
- United States v. GoddardNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2000
- United States v. CarsonArmy Court of Criminal Appeals · 2001
- United States v. KnightCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1999
- United States v. CarsonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.