United States v. Brundidge

1 M.J. 152, 50 C.M.R. 670, 23 USCMA 531, 1975 CMA LEXIS 704
United States Court of Military Appeals·Decided August 22, 1975·No. Nos. 30,310, 30,233 and 30,236·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In each of these cases, a pretrial agreement between the accused and the convening authority included a condition limiting the accused’s presentation at trial of motions on matters “other than jurisdiction” before entry of a plea of guilty. We condemned such a limitation in United States v. Holland, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 442, 50 C.M.R. 461, 1 M.J. 58 (1975). Accordingly, as in Holland, we reverse the decision of the Court of Military Review and set aside the findings of guilty and the sentence in each case. The record of trial of each accused is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the original or other competent convening authority. A rehearing in each instance may be ordered.

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

United States v. Brundidge, 1 M.J. 152, 50 C.M.R. 670, 23 USCMA 531, 1975 CMA LEXIS 704 (cma 1975).

1 M.J. 152 (United States v. Brundidge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Sharper
17 M.J. 803 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1984)
United States v. Cordova
4 M.J. 604 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1977)