United States v. Dudley
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Gilchrist (U S Army Court of Criminal Appeals 2005)
- United States v. Thomas (U S Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals 1995)
- United States v. Foley (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1993)
- United States v. Crawford (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1992)
- United States v. Beehler (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1992)
- United States v. Clark (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1990)
- United States v. Church (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1989)
- United States v. Hodge (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1988)
- United States v. McLaughlin (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1988)
- United States v. Hudson (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1988)
- United States v. James (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1987)
- United States v. McPhaul (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1986)
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
DECISION
At trial the appellant moved to suppress evidence uncovered during a search of his off-base quarters and a statement he subsequently gave law enforcement officials. After the trial judge ruied against him, he pleaded guilty to wrongful use and distribution of marijuana.
The appellant now suggests that his plea was improvident because the military judge failed to advise him that his guilty plea waived appellate review of the denial of the motion to suppress his confession and the contraband discovered in his house. In his Goode
We disagree. The facts in Bailey are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In Bailey, rather than advising the accused of the rights he would give up by pleading guilty, the military judge merely asked defense counsel if he had explained to the accused his “evidentiary and testimonial rights.” This is, of course, insufficient as the law requires the trial judge to advise the accused on the record of the legal meaning and effect of a guilty plea. R.C.M. 910(c); United States v. Care, 18
Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge’s failure to advise the appellant that his guilty plea waived appellate review of the denial of his suppression motion did not render the plea improvident. United States v. Jackson, 7 M.J. 647 (A.C.M.R. 1979). The findings of guilty and the sentence are
AFFIRMED.
. United States v. Goode, 50 C.M.R. 1 (C.M.A. 1975).
. We have previously observed, apparently with little success, that "[S]cant purpose is served in cluttering up a Goode response with the merits of trial errors.” United States v. Schrock, 11 M.J. 797, 799 n. 1 (A.F.C.M.R. 1981). If trial defense counsel think it appropriate to identify trial errors, the proper vehicle is a post-trial brief. R.C.M. 1105
. The procedures governing conditional guilty pleas are set out in R.C.M. 910(a)(2) and discussed in some detail in United States v. Forbes, 19 M.J. 953 (A.F.C.M.R. 1985).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.