United States v. Rogers
United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
59 M.J. 584 (2003)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
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…
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.