United States v. Rogers

59 M.J. 584 (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Rogers

United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
59 M.J. 584 (2003)

Facts

Private Latonya M. Rogers (defendant) was charged with three specifications of absence without leave (AWOL) for three separate periods of absence from her unit. Rogers pleaded guilty to all three specifications. During the providence inquiry, Rogers told the military judge that she had been absent from her unit because she wanted out of the army. Rogers also stated that she had sometimes been on post during her absences. In response to this disclosure, the military judge asked Rogers whether she was under the control of her unit when she was on post. Rogers replied that she went to her unit and saw some of her noncommissioned officers but that the officers never remarked on her AWOL status and that she never turned herself in. The military judge determined that Rogers’s guilty plea was provident and found her guilty of absence without leave. The convening authority approved the military judge’s finding, and the case was submitted to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review pursuant to Article 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Schenck, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership