Court Opinion

ID: 9500427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 18:14:01.726614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:55.764622
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Judge
(concurring in the result):
I concur with the result on Issues I and II. As in United States v. Politte,1 63 M.J. 24, 27 (C.A.A.F.2006) (Crawford, J., concurring in the result), I concur in the result to allow further action in the case rather than dismissing for a lack of jurisdiction. However, as I indicated in Politte, the original action in that ease had a typographical error. “Several factors [would] lead one to the common sense conclusion that there was an administrative oversight in the convening authority’s action that was not consistent with the intent of the convening authority.” Id. Because Politte was a 2-1-2 opinion, I thought the better result was that reached by Chief Judge Gierke. Id. at 27-28. Thus, I concurred in the result. I also agree that United States v. Lower, 10 M.J. 263 (C.M.A.1981) is distinguishable based on the unique facts of this case.
As to Issue III, I disassociate myself from the Court’s analysis based on United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.2006), and its misapplication of the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), test. See Moreno, 63 M.J. at 144 (Crawford, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

. Counsel at oral argument in Politte indicated that the appellant’s name in that case was pronounced "polite,” as in being courteous.