United States v. Baylor

United States Court of Military Appeals

United States v. Baylor

15 C.M.A. 522, 15 USCMA 522, 36 C.M.R. 20, 1965 CMA LEXIS 141, 1965 WL 4772

CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals

DecidedNovember 5, 1965

DocketNo. 18,510

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 C.M.A. 522 (United States v. Baylor) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Baylor, 15 C.M.A. 522, 15 USCMA 522, 36 C.M.R. 20, 1965 CMA LEXIS 141, 1965 WL 4772 (cma 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

Kilday, Judge:

At his separate trial by general court-martial, accused pleaded not guilty but was convicted of attempted robbery and one specification of robbery, in violation of Articles 80 and 122, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 880 and 922. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for five years. The convening authority approved, and a board of review affirmed the findings and sentence except for the period of confinement, which it reduced to two years.

Upon Baylor’s prayer for reconsideration of our initial action on his petition for grant of review, we elected to hear his hapeal on substantially the same question involved in the companion case of United States v Mitchell, 15 USCMA 516, 36 CMR 14, this day decided.

Except that the written request for counsel submitted by Baylor was for representation by Captain Johnson, the facts pertinent to the instant ease are essentially identical to those recounted in the Mitchell opinion, supra. The Article 32 investigation report form reflects, without explanation, that counsel requested by name was not reasonably available, and the record is otherwise silent on that score. The report shows that, instead, the general court-martial authority appointed a certified lawyer, Lieutenant Hagedorn, as counsel for the accused. He acted in that capacity both at the pretrial investigation and at trial, and at neither level did Baylor raise any objection of any sort with regard to the question of counsel.

It is evident that the instant case is controlled by our decision in United States v Mitchell, supra. Here, as there, appellate defense counsel have moved to strike affidavits attached to the Government’s brief but, as in Mitchell, we find it unnecessary to rule on said motion.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion of the Court

Kilday, Judge:

At his separate trial by general court-martial, accused pleaded not guilty but was convicted of attempted robbery and one specification of robbery, in violation of Articles 80 and 122, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 880 and 922. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for five years. The convening authority approved, and a board of review affirmed the findings and sentence except for the period of confinement, which it reduced to two years.

Upon Baylor’s prayer for reconsideration of our initial action on his petition for grant of review, we elected to hear his hapeal on substantially the same question involved in the companion case of United States v Mitchell, 15 USCMA 516, 36 CMR 14, this day decided.

Except that the written request for counsel submitted by Baylor was for representation by Captain Johnson, the facts pertinent to the instant ease are essentially identical to those recounted in the Mitchell opinion, supra. The Article 32 investigation report form reflects, without explanation, that counsel requested by name was not reasonably available, and the record is otherwise silent on that score. The report shows that, instead, the general court-martial authority appointed a certified lawyer, Lieutenant Hagedorn, as counsel for the accused. He acted in that capacity both at the pretrial investigation and at trial, and at neither level did Baylor raise any objection of any sort with regard to the question of counsel.

It is evident that the instant case is controlled by our decision in United States v Mitchell, supra. Here, as there, appellate defense counsel have moved to strike affidavits attached to the Government’s brief but, as in Mitchell, we find it unnecessary to rule on said motion.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 C.M.A. 522, 15 USCMA 522, 36 C.M.R. 20, 1965 CMA LEXIS 141, 1965 WL 4772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-baylor-cma-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack