United States v. Cross
19 M.J. 973, 1985 CMR LEXIS 4136
U.S. Army Court of Military Review·Decided February 28, 1985·No. CM 445078·Published·Cited by 5 cases
Opinions
OPINION OF THE COURT
Appellant contends that he was prejudiced by the sentence limitation terms of [974] the pretrial agreement which were operative only if a punitive discharge was adjudged. In light of United, States v. Castleberry, 18 M.J. 826 (ACMR 1984), and United States v. Holmes, 17 M.J. 830 (ACMR), pet. denied, 18 M.J. 438 (CMA 1984), we find this contention to be without merit. Such provisions are not violative of public policy.
The findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Cross, 19 M.J. 973, 1985 CMR LEXIS 4136 (usarmymilrev 1985).
19 M.J. 973 (United States v. Cross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Taylor
21 M.J. 810 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1986)
United States v. Witherspoon
19 M.J. 978 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1985)
United States v. Sanders
19 M.J. 979 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1985)
United States v. Costa
19 M.J. 980 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1985)
United States v. Wordlow
19 M.J. 981 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1985)