Case ID: cma_20/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Quinn, Chief Judge: Ferguson, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM F. HILL, JR., First Lieutenant, U. S. Army, Appellant
    20 USCMA 125, 42 CMR 317
    No. 23,083
    November 6, 1970
    
      Colonel Daniel T. Ghent and Captain Bernard J. Casey were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.
    
      Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger, Captain William R. Steinmetz, and Captain M. M. O’Dowd, Jr., were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.
   Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

We granted review to consider the propriety of the acceptance of the accused’s plea of guilty to larceny and housebreaking, in violation of Articles 121 and 130, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§921 and 930, respectively. For the reasons set out in our opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date, we conclude there was no error in the acceptance of the accused’s plea of guilty. Accordingly, the decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this case that the plea of guilty was properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970). The military judge’s failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in Palos, supra.