Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. JOHN H. FLEMINGS, III, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Flemings
Decision Date: 1958-02-21
Docket Number: No. 10,888
Citation: 8 C.M.A. 729
Volume: 8
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN H. FLEMINGS, III, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
Judges: 
Pages: 729–730

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN H. FLEMINGS, III, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
8 USCMA 729, 25 CMR 233
No. 10,888
Decided February 21, 1958
Commander David Bolton, USN, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.
Commander Craig McKee, USN, and Commander Louis L. Milano, USN, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
A Marine Corps special court-martial found the accused guilty of several offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The accused had entered a plea of guilty as to some offenses and not guilty as to others. The staff legal officer, in his post-trial review of the record, summarized the evidence presented at trial as to those offenses to which the accused had pleaded not guilty. The reviewer, however, failed to express an opinion as to the factual and legal sufficiency of the evidence. This was error. A post-trial review must do more than summarize; it must also advise. United States v Withrow, 8 USCMA 728, 25 CMR 232, paragraph 85b, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951.
The error in the review, however, relates only to those offenses to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, we may dispose of the case by returning the record to the board of review which may, in its discretion, set aside the findings of guilt of specification 2, Charge I, and Charge III and the specification thereunder, and reassess an appropriate sentence on the basis of the remaining approved findings of guilt or may order further proceedings pursuant to Articles 61 and 64 of the Code, supra. Cf. United States v Katzenberger, 8 USCMA 497, 24 CMR 307. It is so ordered.