United States v. Rivera

United States Court of Military Appeals

United States v. Rivera

13 C.M.A. 30, 13 USCMA 30, 32 C.M.R. 30, 1962 CMA LEXIS 241, 1962 WL 4446

CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals

DecidedApril 13, 1962

DocketNo. 15,724

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 C.M.A. 30 (United States v. Rivera) 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. Rivera, 13 C.M.A. 30, 13 USCMA 30, 32 C.M.R. 30, 1962 CMA LEXIS 241, 1962 WL 4446 (cma 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

[31]*31Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

On his plea of guilty, the accused was convicted by a special court-martial of larceny of $60.00, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. On review, the convening authority held that certain evidence admitted on behalf of the Government in connection with the sentence was improper. To cure the error, he reduced the confinement and the forfeitures adjudged by the court-martial. In view of the nature of the improper evidence, the convening authority’s action provided inadequate relief. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to it for further consideration. United States v Fowle, 7 USCMA 349, 352, 22 CMR 139.

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

[31]*31Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

On his plea of guilty, the accused was convicted by a special court-martial of larceny of $60.00, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. On review, the convening authority held that certain evidence admitted on behalf of the Government in connection with the sentence was improper. To cure the error, he reduced the confinement and the forfeitures adjudged by the court-martial. In view of the nature of the improper evidence, the convening authority’s action provided inadequate relief. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to it for further consideration. United States v Fowle, 7 USCMA 349, 352, 22 CMR 139.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 C.M.A. 30, 13 USCMA 30, 32 C.M.R. 30, 1962 CMA LEXIS 241, 1962 WL 4446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rivera-cma-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack