United States v. Carroll

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Carroll

74 M.J. 264, 2015 CAAF LEXIS 186

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DecidedFebruary 11, 2015

DocketNo. 14-0505/AR

StatusPublished

This text of 74 M.J. 264 (United States v. Carroll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Carroll, 74 M.J. 264, 2015 CAAF LEXIS 186 (Ark. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

CCA 20111158. On consideration of the granted issue, the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Carroll, No. 20111158 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 28, 2014), and the judgment of this Court in United States v. Phillips, No. 14-0199/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2015), we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to have his guilty plea to disobeying the order of his superior commissioned officer under Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 890 (2012), set aside. Appellant did not establish “a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the guilty plea.” United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008). He failed to produce evidence that his company commander issued the restriction order for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty that would apply if Appellant violated the restriction order. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

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

CCA 20111158. On consideration of the granted issue, the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Carroll, No. 20111158 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 28, 2014), and the judgment of this Court in United States v. Phillips, No. 14-0199/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2015), we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to have his guilty plea to disobeying the order of his superior commissioned officer under Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 890 (2012), set aside. Appellant did not establish “a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the guilty plea.” United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008). He failed to produce evidence that his company commander issued the restriction order for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty that would apply if Appellant violated the restriction order. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 M.J. 264, 2015 CAAF LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carroll-armfor-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack