United States v. Glosser

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Glosser

CourtNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 2020

Docket201900293

StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Glosser (United States v. Glosser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Glosser, (N.M. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES NMCCA No. 201900293 Appellee Special Panel 2 v. ORDER Travis J. GLOSSER Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps Remanding Case for U. S. Marine Corps New Post-Trial Processing Appellant

Upon consideration of the record of trial, the Court determined that the convening authority failed to defer and waive automatic forfeiture of allowances 1 as required by the pretrial agreement. 2 The Court further determined that the military judge failed to address the convening authori- ty’s obligation to defer and waive automatic forfeiture of allowances in Section E, paragraph 24, of the Statement of Trial Results; and, Section C, paragraph 35, of the Entry of Judgment. Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 19th day of March 2020, ORDERED: 1. That the Statement of Trial Results is SET ASIDE. 2. That the Convening Authority’s Action is SET ASIDE. 3. That the Entry of Judgment is SET ASIDE. 4. That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to the Navy-Marine Corps Chief Trial Judge to detail a military judge to reaccomplish the Statement of Trial Results in compliance with Rule For Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1101. Next, the record will be forwarded to the convening authority to reaccomplish the Convening Authority’s Action in

1 A general court-martial consisting of a military judge sitting alone sentenced

Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for 20 months, and a bad-conduct discharge. Such a sentence results in the automatic forfeiture of all pay and allowances due Appellant during his period of confinement. Article 58b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 58b (2012). 2 The convening authority correctly deferred and waived automatic forfeiture of pay as required by the pretrial agreement. The errors discussed herein relate only to the convening authority’s obligation to defer and waive automatic forfeiture of allowances. compliance with R.C.M. 1110. Thereafter the record will be forwarded to the military judge to reaccomplish the Entry of Judgment in accordance with R.C.M. 1111. Finally, the record will be returned to this Court for completion of appellate review.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

Copy to: NMCCA (51.2) 45 (CAPT Hinson) 46 02

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

UNITED STATES NMCCA No. 201900293 Appellee Special Panel 2 v. ORDER Travis J. GLOSSER Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps Remanding Case for U. S. Marine Corps New Post-Trial Processing Appellant

Upon consideration of the record of trial, the Court determined that the convening authority failed to defer and waive automatic forfeiture of allowances 1 as required by the pretrial agreement. 2 The Court further determined that the military judge failed to address the convening authori- ty’s obligation to defer and waive automatic forfeiture of allowances in Section E, paragraph 24, of the Statement of Trial Results; and, Section C, paragraph 35, of the Entry of Judgment. Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 19th day of March 2020, ORDERED: 1. That the Statement of Trial Results is SET ASIDE. 2. That the Convening Authority’s Action is SET ASIDE. 3. That the Entry of Judgment is SET ASIDE. 4. That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to the Navy-Marine Corps Chief Trial Judge to detail a military judge to reaccomplish the Statement of Trial Results in compliance with Rule For Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1101. Next, the record will be forwarded to the convening authority to reaccomplish the Convening Authority’s Action in

1 A general court-martial consisting of a military judge sitting alone sentenced

Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for 20 months, and a bad-conduct discharge. Such a sentence results in the automatic forfeiture of all pay and allowances due Appellant during his period of confinement. Article 58b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 58b (2012). 2 The convening authority correctly deferred and waived automatic forfeiture of pay as required by the pretrial agreement. The errors discussed herein relate only to the convening authority’s obligation to defer and waive automatic forfeiture of allowances. compliance with R.C.M. 1110. Thereafter the record will be forwarded to the military judge to reaccomplish the Entry of Judgment in accordance with R.C.M. 1111. Finally, the record will be returned to this Court for completion of appellate review.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

Copy to: NMCCA (51.2) 45 (CAPT Hinson) 46 02

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

United States v. Glosser, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-glosser-nmcca-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack