United States v. Pointer

18 C.M.A. 587, 18 USCMA 587, 40 C.M.R. 299, 1969 CMA LEXIS 713, 1969 WL 6089
CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals
DecidedSeptember 19, 1969
DocketNo. 22,217
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 C.M.A. 587 (United States v. Pointer) 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. Pointer, 18 C.M.A. 587, 18 USCMA 587, 40 C.M.R. 299, 1969 CMA LEXIS 713, 1969 WL 6089 (cma 1969).

Opinions

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

Before a special court-martial convened at Long Beach, California, the accused pleaded guilty to an unauthorized absence for a period of forty-eight days. During the sentence proceedings he testified in his own behalf. He indicated he had departed the Naval station without authority to find his pregnant wife who had summarily left him. When his wife returned to California and gave birth to his child, he returned to the service. He maintained his marriage was not “working out” and that the Navy, in which he had served since 1965, was the “only thing . . . [he had] left.” It was his “real desire” to remain in the Navy and, if he did, he would like overseas duty. The court imposed a sentence extending to a bad-conduct discharge.

[588]*588We granted review' to determine whether the accused was denied the effective assistance of counsel as to the sentence. References in the convening authority’s action indicate the accused- served in Vietnam and is the recipient of a letter of commendation as a member of’ the crew of the U. S. S. NAVASOTA. Neither of these matters was presented to the court members. In a substantially similar case, we held that the accused’s Vietnam service and awards could have materially influenced the court members not to impose, a bad-conduct discharge and, therefore, the failure of defense counsel to inform the court members of these matters denied the accused effective representation to that extent. United States v Rowe, 18 USCMA 54, 89 CMR 54.

The decision of the board of review .as to _the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy ■for reference to the Court of Military Review. In its ' discretion, the Court of Military Review may redetermine the sentence without including a punitive discharge, or direct a rehearing of the sentence by a court-martial.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

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

Related

United States v. Walker
21 C.M.A. 376 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1972)
United States v. Brooks
19 C.M.A. 35 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1969)
United States v. Anderson
19 C.M.A. 8 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 C.M.A. 587, 18 USCMA 587, 40 C.M.R. 299, 1969 CMA LEXIS 713, 1969 WL 6089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pointer-cma-1969.