United States v. Cross

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

United States v. Cross

19 M.J. 973, 1985 CMR LEXIS 4136

CourtU.S. Army Court of Military Review

DecidedFebruary 28, 1985

DocketCM 445078

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 19 M.J. 973 (United States v. Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Army Court of Military Review primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Cross, 19 M.J. 973, 1985 CMR LEXIS 4136 (usarmymilrev 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

NAUGHTON, Judge:

Appellant contends that he was prejudiced by the sentence limitation terms of [974]*974the 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.

Judge COHEN concurs.¹

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