United States v. Private E2 KELVIN D. PEEBLES

CourtArmy Court of Criminal Appeals
DecidedApril 24, 2019
DocketARMY 20170044
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Private E2 KELVIN D. PEEBLES (United States v. Private E2 KELVIN D. PEEBLES) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Army 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. Private E2 KELVIN D. PEEBLES, (acca 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before SALUSSOLIA, SALADINO, and ALDYKIEWICZ Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Private E2 KELVIN D. PEEBLES United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20170044

Headquarters, Fort Drum S. Charles Neill, Military Judge Colonel Peter R. Hayden, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Tiffany M. Chapman, JA; Major Todd W. Simpson, JA; Captain Heather M. Martin, JA (on brief); Major Todd W. Simpson, JA; Captain Heather M. Martin, JA (on reply brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Steven P. Haight, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Eric K. Stafford, JA; Major Hannah E. Kaufman, JA; Captain Meredith M. Picard, JA (on brief).

24 April 2019

--------------------------------------------------------------- OPINION OF THE COURT ON RECONSIDERATION ---------------------------------------------------------------

Per Curiam:

In light of our superior court’s decision in United States v. McDonald, __M.J.__, 2019 CAAF LEXIS 271 (C.A.A.F. 17 Apr. 2019), this court sua sponte reconsiders its 10 January 2019 decision in this case. 1

1 We have also reconsidered appellant’s three assigned errors and the matters appellant personally asserted pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and determine they do not warrant discussion or relief. PEEBLES—ARMY 20170044

CONCLUSION

For the reasoning set forth by our superior court in McDonald, the 10 January 2019 published opinion of this court, United States v. Peebles, 78 M.J. 658 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2019), is hereby VACATED.

Pursuant to our reconsideration of the entire record, we hold the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the convening authority correct in law and fact. Accordingly, those findings of guilty and the sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

JOSEPH JOHN P.P.TAITT TALBERT Acting ClerkofofCourt Acting Clerk Court

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

Related

United States v. Grostefon
12 M.J. 431 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Private E2 KELVIN D. PEEBLES, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-private-e2-kelvin-d-peebles-acca-2019.