United States v. Romero
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Rumpler (United States Court of Military Appeals 1970)
- United States v. Wilson (United States Court of Military Appeals 1970)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court
The accused pleaded guilty and was found guilty of larceny, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. The providence of his plea is now under attack.
The procedure followed by the president of this special court-martial would not meet the standard that must apply to cases tried thirty days after the decision in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247. His inquiry, however, is comparable to that found in Care. The president determined that defense counsel had explained each element of the offense charged to the accused but nowhere did he itemize for the accused each element. Considering the inquiry made and the crime charged, we are satisfied that Romero’s plea is knowing and provident.
The decision of the board of review is, therefore, affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
I dissent.
For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247, I would reverse the decision of the board of review and order a rehearing.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.