## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T 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 Co rps and Fort Hood Patricia H. Lewis, Military Judge Colonel Stuart W. Risch, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Colonel Ke vin Boyle, JA; Ma jor 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 de sertion, three specifications of absence without leave, seven specifications of larceny, and two specifications of knowingly receiving stolen prop erty in violation of Articles 85, 86, 121, and 134,

Uniform Code of Militar y Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 885, 886, 92 1, 934 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ], respec tively. The milit ary judge sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 18 months, and reducti on to the grade of E1. The convening authority a pproved the sentence as adjudged. The appellant received 141 days of confin ement credit against the sentence to confinement.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Arti cle 66, UCMJ. In his sole assignment of error, appellant asks this court to provide appropriate relief to remedy the dilatory post-trial processi ng of his case. We agree th at relief is appropriate in this case and grant 30 days co nfinement 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 th e 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 ap propriateness of the sentence in light of the unjustified dilatory post-trial processing. UC MJ 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 find ings and sentence ‘should be approved,’ based on all the facts and circum stances reflected in the record, including the unexplained and unreasona ble post-trial delay.”); see generally United States v. Toohey , 63 M.J. 353, 362-6 3 (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 th e 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 betw een announcement of sentence and action without any explanation from the Staff Judge Advocate co uld “adversely affect the public’s perception of the fair ness and integrity of military justice system . . . .” Ney , 68 M.J. at 617. We agree and provide relief in our decr etal paragraph.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of th e entire record, the fi ndings of guilty are

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

much of the sentence as extends to a di shonorable discharge, confinement for seventeen months, and reduct ion to the grade of E-1. All rights, privileges, and property, of which appe llant has been depriv ed by virtue of th is decision setting aside portions of the senten ce 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: