United States v. Guardado

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Guardado

76 M.J. 166, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 273

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided March 3, 2017·No. No. 17-0183/AR·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

CCA 20140014. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT INCORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE’S PANEL INSTRUCTIONS WERE HARMLESS ERROR IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. HILLS.

II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT INCORRECTLY RULED THAT AN OFFENSE DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT CANNOT PREEMPT A GENERAL ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, OFFENSE, AND THAT PREEMPTION IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.

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

CCA 20140014. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT INCORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE’S PANEL INSTRUCTIONS WERE HARMLESS ERROR IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. HILLS.

II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT INCORRECTLY RULED THAT AN OFFENSE DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT CANNOT PREEMPT A GENERAL ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, OFFENSE, AND THAT PREEMPTION IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.

United States v. Guardado, 76 M.J. 166, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 273 (Ark. 2017).

Pincite

76 M.J. 166 (United States v. Guardado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related