CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Pineda, 54 M.J. 298
Decided Jan 9, 2001 · No. 99-0915/MC · 2001 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 3 topics
Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities
- a defense counsel may not ask for a punitive separation from the service in contravention of an accused’s wishes, and a military judge must make appropriate inquiries where a conflict exists between defense counsel’s request and an accused’s apparent wishes
- military judge failed to make adequate inquiries into defense counsel’s concession that a punitive discharge was appropriate where there was no indication on the record that appellant desired punitive separation
Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Argument
- a defense counsel may not ask for a punitive separation from the service in contravention of an accused’s wishes, and a military judge must make appropriate inquiries where a conflict exists between defense counsel’s request and an accused’s apparent wishes
- military judge failed to make adequate inquiries into defense counsel’s concession that a punitive discharge was appropriate where there was no indication on the record that appellant desired punitive separation
- appellant was not prejudiced by military judge’s failure to make adequate inquiries into defense counsel’s concession that a punitive discharge was appropriate; where the facts of a given case compel a conclusion that a bad-conduct discharge was reasonably likely, a new sentence hearing is not normally ordered; here, appellant implicitly acknowledged the reasonable certainty of a punitive discharge where he was convicted of numerous offenses reflecting his repeated abuse of government property entrusted to him
Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error
- appellant was not prejudiced by military judge’s failure to make adequate inquiries into defense counsel’s concession that a punitive discharge was appropriate; where the facts of a given case compel a conclusion that a bad-conduct discharge was reasonably likely, a new sentence hearing is not normally ordered; here, appellant implicitly acknowledged the reasonable certainty of a punitive discharge where he was convicted of numerous offenses reflecting his repeated abuse of government property entrusted to him
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).