UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

TOZZI, CAMPANELLA, and CELTNIEKS 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Specialist KYLE L. PURDY 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20120400 

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood 

Patricia H. Lewis, Military Judge 

Colonel Stuart W. Risch, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Amy E. Nieman, JA; Captain 

Robert N. Michaels, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA; 

Captain Sam Gabremariam, JA; Captain T. Campbell Warner, JA (on brief). 

26 September 2014 

---------------------------------- 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

----------------------------------

Per curiam: 

 A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, 

pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of desertion, three specifications of 

absence without leave, seven specifications of larceny, and two specifications of 

knowingly receiving stolen property in violation of Articles 85, 86, 121, and 134, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 885, 886, 921, 934 (2012) 

[hereinafter UCMJ], respectively. The military judge sentenced appellant to a 

dishonorable discharge, confinement for 18 months, and reduction to the grade of E1. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The appellant 

received 141 days of confinement credit against the sentence to confinement. 

 This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. In his sole 

assignment of error, appellant asks this court to provide appropriate relief to remedy 

the dilatory post-trial processing of his case. We agree that relief is appropriate in 

this case and grant 30 days confinement credit. 
PURDY—ARMY 20120400 

2

The convening authority took action 296 days after the sentence was 

adjudged. The record in this case consists of one volume, and the trial transcript is 

124 pages. Although we find no due process violation in the post-trial processing of 

appellant’s case, we must still review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of 

the unjustified dilatory post-trial processing. UCMJ art. 66(c); United States v. 

Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 224 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (“[Pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, 

service courts are] required to determine what findings and sentence ‘should be 

approved,’ based on all the facts and circumstances reflected in the record, including 

the unexplained and unreasonable post-trial delay.”); see generally United States v. 

Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362-63 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 

617 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2010); United States v. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army 

Ct. Crim. App. 2000). It took 197 days to transcribe the record in this case. The 

government has provided no explanation in the record of trial or in its post-trial 

submissions for this delay. Moreover, the government concedes that relief in this 

case is appropriate where the delay between announcement of sentence and action 

without any explanation from the Staff Judge Advocate could “adversely affect the 

public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of military justice system . . . .” 

Ney, 68 M.J. at 617. We agree and provide relief in our decretal paragraph. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of guilty are 

AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, however, we affirm only so 

much of the sentence as extends to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 

seventeen months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. All rights, privileges, and 

property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of this decision setting 

aside portions of the sentence are ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58a(b), 58b(c), 

and 75(a). 

FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

FOR THE COURT: