United States v. Saplala
This text of 19 C.M.A. 344 (United States v. Saplala) 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.
Opinion
Opinion of the Court
After pleading guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, the appellant testified in mitigation that he acted in self-defense. This inconsistency causes his plea of guilty to the assault with a dangerous weapon charge to be improvident. Consequently, we must set aside the plea to that charge. United States v Messenger, 2 USCMA 21, 6 CMR 21 (1952) ; United States v Walter, 16 USCMA 30, 36 CMR 186 (1966); United States v Baker, 17 USCMA 346, 38 CMR 144 (1967); United States v Vaughn, 17 USCMA 520, 38 CMR 318 (1968).
The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered, or the sentence may be reassessed on the remaining charge.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 C.M.A. 344, 19 USCMA 344, 41 C.M.R. 344, 1970 CMA LEXIS 924, 1970 WL 7346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-saplala-cma-1970.