Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. ALVIN W. HENRY, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Henry
Decision Date: 1973-06-08
Docket Number: No. 26,037
Citation: 22 C.M.A. 328
Volume: 22
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 ALVIN W. HENRY, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant
Judges: 
Pages: 328–330

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v ALVIN W. HENRY, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant
22 USCMA 328,
46 CMR 328
No. 26,037
June 8, 1973
Captain J. Vincent Aprile, II, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were Colonel Arnold I. Melniek and Captain John D. Lanoue.
Captain Richard A. Karre argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Major Thomas P. Burns, III, Captain Richard L. Menson, and Captain Glenn R. Bonard.

Opinion:
Opinion
Quinn, Judge:
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the accused of a lengthy period of unauthorized absence, and sentenced him to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 8 months, and accessory forfeitures. The accused contends the judge erred in admitting evidence of a previous conviction by special court-martial at which he was represented by counsel who was not a professional lawyer. See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 6c.
In light of the United States Supreme Court's reexamination of the constitutional right to counsel in Argersinger v Hamlin, 407 US 25 (1972), we reexamined the qualifications for appointed counsel for special courts-martial. United States v Alderman, 22 USCMA 298, 46 CMR 298 (1973). We reaffirmed the legality of appointment as defense counsel for special courts-martial of persons possessed of the qualifications prescribed therefor by Congress, although they are not professionally trained lawyers. As it is not contended that defense counsel at accused's previous court-martial lacked the prescribed qualifications, evidence of that conviction was properly admitted. United States v Alderman, supra. The decision of the Court of Military Review, therefore, is affirmed.