United States v. Weddle
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CARMICHAEL, Judge:
The appellant, through counsel, asserts that United States v. New, 23 M.J. 889 (A.C.M.R.1987), was wrongly decided and that he should have received eighty-seven days of Allen credit for the time he spent in pretrial confinement. See United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A.1984) (day-for-day administrative credit for pretrial confinement). The military judge, apparently relying on the computation formula in New, determined the appellant should receive eighty-six rather than eighty-seven days of Allen credit. The New formula omits the first day and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. AllenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1984
- United States v. SuzukiUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
- United States v. SuzukiUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. DeLoatchU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1987
- United States v. NewU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1987
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. StuartU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1993
- United States v. SpencerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1991
- United States v. HanktonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1990