United States v. Wordlow

19 M.J. 981, 1985 CMR LEXIS 4140
CourtU.S. Army Court of Military Review
DecidedFebruary 28, 1985
DocketSPCM 20018
StatusPublished

This text of 19 M.J. 981 (United States v. Wordlow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Army Court of Military Review primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Wordlow, 19 M.J. 981, 1985 CMR LEXIS 4140 (usarmymilrev 1985).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

NAUGHTON, Judge:

Appellant contends that he was prejudiced by the sentence limitation terms of the pretrial agreement which were operative only if a punitive discharge was adjudged. In light of United States v. Castleberry, 18 M.J. 826 (ACMR 1984), and United States v. Holmes, 17 M.J. 830 (ACMR), pet. denied, 18 M.J. 438 (CMA 1984), we find this contention to be without merit. Such provisions are not violative of public policy.

Appellant also contends that the convening authority erred in failing to grant appellant administrative credit for pretrial confinement served. See United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (CMA 1984). We need not now rule on this matter. See United States v. Clark, 17 M.J. 431 (CMA 1984) (summary disposition).

The findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed.

Judge COHEN concurs.1

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

Related

United States v. Allen
17 M.J. 126 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1984)
United States v. Holmes
17 M.J. 830 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1984)
United States v. Castleberry
18 M.J. 826 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1984)
United States v. Cross
19 M.J. 973 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 M.J. 981, 1985 CMR LEXIS 4140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wordlow-usarmymilrev-1985.