United States v. Dufour

15 M.J. 1016, 1983 CMR LEXIS 916
CourtU S Air Force Court of Military Review
DecidedApril 22, 1983
DocketACM S25858
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 M.J. 1016 (United States v. Dufour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U S Air Force 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. Dufour, 15 M.J. 1016, 1983 CMR LEXIS 916 (usafctmilrev 1983).

Opinions

DECISION

HODGSON, Chief Judge:

The accused, without authority, left his organization at Chanute Air Force Base, Illinois, on 7 September 1977, and remained absent until he returned on 8 July 1982. On 1 October 1982, charges were preferred alleging an absence without leave starting, not on 7 September 1977, the date of departure, but 2 October 1980, and continuing until 8 July 1982, because the prosecution believed apparently, this lesser period would not be affected by the statute of limitations. Article 43(c), U.C.M.J., 10 U.S.C. § 843(c).1

Pursuant to his pleas, the accused was convicted of absence without leave for the period 12 February 1982 to 8 July 19822 in violation of Article 86, 10 U.S.C. § 886 of the Code. The approved sentence extends to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for four months, and the forfeiture of $100.00 per month for four months.

In a single assignment of error, which the Government concedes, the accused argues that his prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations which he did not waive.

We agree. Absence without leave is not a continuing offense. Rather, it is complete when the individual first so absents himself. United States v. Rodgers, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 389, 50 C.M.R. 271 (1975); United States v. Emerson, 1 U.S.C.M.A. 43, 1 C.M.R. 43 (1951). Accordingly, charges must be preferred and delivered to the officer exercising summary court-martial jurisdiction within two years of the beginning of the absence. Article 43(c), Code, supra; [1018]*1018M.C.M., 1969 (Rev.) para. 68e. This was not accomplished here. Further, there is no indication in the record that the accused was advised of his right to assert the statute of limitations or that he consciously waived the right. United States v. Harp, 37 C.M.R. 960 (A.F.B.R.1967): United States v. Taylor, 1 C.M.R. 293 (A.B.R.1951). Under the circumstances, the findings of guilty and the sentence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the charges are dismissed.

HEMINGWAY, Senior Judge, concurs.

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

Related

United States v. Miklinevich
17 M.J. 516 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 M.J. 1016, 1983 CMR LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dufour-usafctmilrev-1983.