United States v. Holland

United States Court of Military Appeals

United States v. Holland

9 C.M.A. 323, 9 USCMA 323, 26 C.M.R. 103, 1958 CMA LEXIS 553, 1958 WL 3309

CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1958

DocketNo. 11,331

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 C.M.A. 323 (United States v. Holland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Military 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. Holland, 9 C.M.A. 323, 9 USCMA 323, 26 C.M.R. 103, 1958 CMA LEXIS 553, 1958 WL 3309 (cma 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

On his plea of guilty the accused was convicted of three lengthy unauthorized absences from his organization and two specifications alleging a breach of restriction from the same area. Assuming that the former are embraced within the latter¹ the punishment is two years instead of two years and six months. Considering the sentence adjudged and that approved by the intermediate appellate authorities, we are of the opinion that remand of the case for reassessment of the sentence is not justified. United States v Helfrick, 9 USCMA 221, 25 CMR 483.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judges Latimer and Ferguson concur in the reswlt.

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

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

On his plea of guilty the accused was convicted of three lengthy unauthorized absences from his organization and two specifications alleging a breach of restriction from the same area. Assuming that the former are embraced within the latter¹ the punishment is two years instead of two years and six months. Considering the sentence adjudged and that approved by the intermediate appellate authorities, we are of the opinion that remand of the case for reassessment of the sentence is not justified. United States v Helfrick, 9 USCMA 221, 25 CMR 483.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judges Latimer and Ferguson concur in the reswlt.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 C.M.A. 323, 9 USCMA 323, 26 C.M.R. 103, 1958 CMA LEXIS 553, 1958 WL 3309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-holland-cma-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack