United States v. Akins
This text of 23 C.M.A. 257 (United States v. Akins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Military Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
The staff judge advocate’s post-trial advice to the convening authority did not mention that the judge had recommended suspension of the punitive discharge adjudged at trial. Although an omission of this kind is not by itself ground for corrective action, the record of trial convinces us that the deficiency may have prejudiced the accused in the convening authority’s assessment of the sentence. United States v Arnold, 21 USCMA 151, 44 CMR 205 (1972). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Military Review and set aside the action of the convening authority.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General. Further proceedings consistent with this opinion may be had before another competent reviewing authority.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 C.M.A. 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-akins-cma-1974.