Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. ROGER B. DESHAZOR, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-07-02
Citations: 14 C.M.A. 667
Docket Number: No. 17,530
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROGER B. DESHAZOR, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
Judges: Judge Kilday concurs.
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Volume: 14
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROGER B. DESHAZOR, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
14 USCMA 667, 34 CMR 447
No. 17,530
July 2, 1964
Colonel Joseph L. Chalk and Captain Charles W. Schiesser were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.
Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper and Captain John C. Cortesio, Jr., were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
Quinn, Chief Judge:
A general court-martial convicted the accused of unauthorized absence and missing movement, in violation of Articles 86 and 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886 and 887, respectively, and sentenced him to a bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, •confinement at hard labor for one year, •and reduction in rank. The law officer instructed the court-martial on the correct maximum punishment which could be adjudged, but did not inform it that the offenses found were the same for sentence purposes. See United States v Posnick, 8 USCMA 201, 24 CMR 11.
The question before us is whether the accused was prejudiced by the failure to advise the court-martial as to the number of offenses upon which the maximum sentence was predicated. The issue was considered in United States v Green, 9 USCMA 585, 26 CMR 365. It was there held that since the law officer informed the court of the correct legal maximum penalty no prejudice could result. Since the Green case, supra, is controlling, the decision of the board of review is affirmed. See also United States v Searles, 14 USCMA 643, 34 CMR 423.
Judge Kilday concurs.