United States v. Axley
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. DeSoto (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review 1982)
- United States v. Walls (United States Court of Military Appeals 1980)
- United States v. Friedman (U S Coast Guard Court of Military Review 1982)
- United States v. Gibson (United States Court of Military Appeals 1981)
- United States v. Wessels (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1980)
- United States v. Shealy (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1980)
- United States v. Gambini (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1980)
- United States v. Carr (United States Court of Military Appeals 1979)
- United States v. Harrison (United States Court of Military Appeals 1978)
- United States v. Kinion (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review 1978)
- United States v. Irving (United States Court of Military Appeals 1977)
- United States v. Waller (United States Court of Military Appeals 1977)
- United States v. Myrick (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1977)
- United States v. Montiel (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1977)
- United States v. Walls (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1977)
- United States v. Riggs (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1977)
- United States v. Ortiz-Negron (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1976)
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
Review was granted to determine whether, on the basis of the allegations of the specifications and the evidence, the accused could be separately punished for wrongful sale and wrongful possession of marihuana. The chain of evidence which led to the charges indicates the offenses are not separately punishable. United States v. Smith, 1 M.J. 260 (1976). Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Military Review as to the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the court for reassessment of the sentence in light of this opinion.
Concurring Opinion
(concurring in the result):
I concur. See my separate opinion in United States v. Smith, 1 M.J. 260 (1976).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.