United States v. Condron

19 C.M.A. 216, 19 USCMA 216, 41 C.M.R. 216, 1970 CMA LEXIS 958, 1970 WL 7309
United States Court of Military Appeals·Decided February 13, 1970·No. No. 20,414·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867, the Judge Advocate General of the Army certified the record of trial to this Court for review of the following question:

Was the board of review correct in its determination that failure to transmit the ease for rehearing to the convening authority who originally referred the case to trial resulted in jurisdictional error thereby rendering the rehearing proceedings null and void?

We considered the same question in United States v Martin, 19 USCMA 211, 41 CMR 211 (1970). We determined that when an appellate court directs rehearing of a case it is not jurisdictional error for the Judge Advocate General to refer it to a convening authority other than the one who convened the court-martial that originally tried the accused. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the Court of Military Review for further consideration.

Judge Darden concurs.

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

United States v. Condron, 19 C.M.A. 216, 19 USCMA 216, 41 C.M.R. 216, 1970 CMA LEXIS 958, 1970 WL 7309 (cma 1970).

19 C.M.A. 216 (United States v. Condron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Washington
19 C.M.A. 450 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1970)