United States v. Holmes

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

United States v. Holmes

15 M.J. 1036, 1983 CMR LEXIS 911

CourtU.S. Army Court of Military Review

DecidedApril 26, 1983

DocketCM 442655

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 M.J. 1036 (United States v. Holmes) 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. Holmes, 15 M.J. 1036, 1983 CMR LEXIS 911 (usarmymilrev 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

HANFT, Judge:

During the guilty-plea inquiry in this general court-martial, the trial judge failed to advise the defendant that he was subject to a fine in addition to total forfeitures. Nonetheless, the sentence imposed by the judge included both a fine and total forfeitures which were approved by the convening authority. This was error. While the incomplete advice did not invalidate the plea of guilty, “before both total forfeitures and a fine can be approved the appellant must have been advised during the [guilty-plea] inquiry that his pecuniary loss could exceed the total forfeitures.” United States v. Whitekiller, 8 M.J. 620, 621 (N.C.M.R.1979). See United States v. Whittier, 14 M.J. 606, 607 (A.F.C.M.R.1982). We shall disapprove the fine.

The findings of guilty are affirmed. Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted and the entire record, the Court affirms only so much of the sentence as provides for a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to Private E-l.

Senior Judge CLAUSE and Judge COK-ER concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

HANFT, Judge:

During the guilty-plea inquiry in this general court-martial, the trial judge failed to advise the defendant that he was subject to a fine in addition to total forfeitures. Nonetheless, the sentence imposed by the judge included both a fine and total forfeitures which were approved by the convening authority. This was error. While the incomplete advice did not invalidate the plea of guilty, “before both total forfeitures and a fine can be approved the appellant must have been advised during the [guilty-plea] inquiry that his pecuniary loss could exceed the total forfeitures.” United States v. Whitekiller, 8 M.J. 620, 621 (N.C.M.R.1979). See United States v. Whittier, 14 M.J. 606, 607 (A.F.C.M.R.1982). We shall disapprove the fine.

The findings of guilty are affirmed. Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted and the entire record, the Court affirms only so much of the sentence as provides for a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to Private E-l.

Senior Judge CLAUSE and Judge COK-ER concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 M.J. 1036, 1983 CMR LEXIS 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-holmes-usarmymilrev-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack