United States v. Moon

United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2017 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawMilitary JusticeAppellate ReviewArticle 66(c)UCMJmilitary appealsummary affirmancefindings affirmed

Facts

The opinion identifies Patrick T. Moon, a Sonar Technician (Surface) Seaman Recruit (E-1), U.S. Navy, as the appellant. It states that the case was appealed from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. The opinion does not describe the underlying offenses, trial evidence, or sentence details. It only notes that the court carefully considered the record submitted without assignment of error.

Issue

Whether, after careful consideration of the record under Article 66(c), UCMJ, the findings and sentence approved by the convening authority should be affirmed when the case is submitted without assignment of error.

Rule

Under Article 66(c), UCMJ, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviews the record and may affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority when, after careful consideration, it finds affirmance appropriate. This opinion does not articulate any further substantive test.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A sailor convicted at a court-martial in Norfolk appeals to the service Court of Criminal Appeals. His counsel files the record but raises no assignments of error, and the court states that it has carefully reviewed the record under Article 66(c).

What is the court most clearly authorized to do under the majority opinion's rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion states only that after careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, the court may affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority under Article 66(c). It does not require dismissal, reversal, or remand merely because no error was assigned. (Derived from United States v. Moon (n.d.).)