Court Opinion

ID: 9506428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:01:13.514302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:56.025407
License: Public Domain

STUCKY, Judge
(concurring in part and in the result):
I concur with the majority that, under the circumstances of this case, the rehearing remedied the loss of Appellant’s Good Soldier Book after his original sentencing hearing. For the reasons set out in my dissent in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 219 (C.A.A.F.2012) (Stucky, J., dissenting), and referred to in my recent concurrence in United States v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191, 192 (C.A.A.F.2013) (Stucky, J., concurring in the result), I respectfully disagree with the majority’s holding that Appellant was materially prejudiced by the failure of the specifications alleged under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2006), to allege the terminal element. See Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) (2006).
Nonetheless, it is apparent that at present the majority of this Court continues to adhere to the truncated test for plain error that has been followed at least since United States v. Powell, 49 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F.1998). Having no desire to reargue the issue each time we encounter a plain error situation, and considering myself bound, as we all are, by the precedents of the Court, I will await a ease in which the issue of which test to apply is squarely presented.
I therefore concur in the result.