United StateS v. Ware

5 M.J. 24, 1978 CMA LEXIS 11682
CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals
DecidedMay 8, 1978
DocketNo. 33,182; NCM 75-2733
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 5 M.J. 24 (United StateS v. Ware) 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. Ware, 5 M.J. 24, 1978 CMA LEXIS 11682 (cma 1978).

Opinions

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

This special court-martial1 was convened on January 27, 1975, by Lieutenant Colonel Rader, the Commanding Officer of the Headquarters and Maintenance Squadron-16, Detachment Marine Aircraft Group-16, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing located at Camp Pendleton, California. At an initial Article 39(a), 10 U.S.C. § 839(a) session during the trial held approximately one month subsequent to the convening order, the trial counsel announced a modification to it, replacing the original military judge. The oral modification was to be supplemented by a written memorandum. A document purporting to do this was signed by one Lieutenant Colonel Huebner, Commanding Officer of the Marine Light Helicopter Squadron-267, Detachment Marine Aircraft Group-16, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, at Camp Pendleton. This discrepancy remained unnoticed until raised by Appellate Defense Counsel before the United States Navy Court of Military Review. The [25]*25government, in attempting to cure the error, produced an affidavit from Colonel Rader asserting that his oral modification had not been reduced to writing. We allowed a grant of review to determine if the court-martial had jurisdiction to proceed absent a signed modification to the convening order executed by the proper authority. This question we are compelled to answer in the negative.

In its terse disposition of the issue we are now examining, the United States Navy Court of Military Review opined simply that “[t]he defect in the record noted in the first assignment has been corrected by an affidavit of the convening authority.” This is an insufficient treatment of yet another jurisdictional problem caused as a direct result of apparently indifferent discharge of the simplest and most basic administrative duty of those responsible for the military court-martial, i. e., properly prepared convening orders and attendant modifications. While in United States v. Carey, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 315, 49 C.M.R. 605 (1975), we allowed a convening authority’s affidavit to save an otherwise “sinking record,” Judge Cook, speaking for the Court, observed: “Yet this characterization depicts a deplorable situation that in other circumstances may not be tolerated.” Id., at 316, 49 C.M.R. at 606. In this circumstance we are disinclined to endow with a presumption of regularity a stale order (if this eleventh hour affidavit is to be so viewed) written fourteen months after the apparent previous oral appointment. Absent the affidavit, which we will not allow as a demonstration that this court-martial was properly constituted, the record is devoid of a proper written order modifying the original convening order. Following United States v. Carey, supra, the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review is reversed. In the interest of judicial economy the charges are ordered dismissed.

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

Related

United States v. Choy
33 M.J. 1080 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1992)
United States v. Brinston
31 M.J. 222 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1990)
United States v. Hutto
29 M.J. 917 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1989)
United States v. Stafford
25 M.J. 609 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1987)
United States v. Beaulieu
21 M.J. 498 (U S Coast Guard Court of Military Review, 1985)
United States v. Marsh
19 M.J. 657 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1984)
United States v. Perkinson
16 M.J. 400 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Holmes
17 M.J. 611 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1983)
United States v. Glover
15 M.J. 419 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Pulliam
14 M.J. 617 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1982)
United States v. Moody
10 M.J. 845 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1981)
United States v. Livingston
7 M.J. 638 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1979)
United States v. Shearer
6 M.J. 737 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 M.J. 24, 1978 CMA LEXIS 11682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ware-cma-1978.