CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Perez, 66 M.J. 164
Decided Mar 18, 2008 · No. 08-5002/AF · 2008 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 3 topics
Military Justice Personnel: Convening Authority: Action
- as a matter of command prerogative, the convening authority may modify or dismiss charges and modify the sentence
- although the convening authority is required to take action on the sentence, the convening authority is not required to act on the findings
- the broad authority of the convening authority to take action on the findings and sentence under Article 60(c), UCMJ, includes the power to dismiss charges and reassess a sentence to cure a legal error or moot allegations of such
Trial Stages: Initial Review: Action
- as a matter of command prerogative, the convening authority may modify or dismiss charges and modify the sentence
- although the convening authority is required to take action on the sentence, the convening authority is not required to act on the findings
- the broad authority of the convening authority to take action on the findings and sentence under Article 60(c), UCMJ, includes the power to dismiss charges and reassess a sentence to cure a legal error or moot allegations of such
Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally
- the court of criminal appeals has an independent responsibility to affirm only such findings of guilty, and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved
- in this case, where the convening authority modified the findings of guilty to disobeying an order, rape, and assault consummated by a battery, by dismissing the charge and specification for rape, and approved that portion of the sentence providing for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 206 days, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, the action taken by the court of criminal appeals on appellate review in affirming the findings, as modified by the convening authority, and in approving that portion of the sentence that provided for confinement for six months and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade was within the power granted to it by Article 66(c), UCMJ
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).