UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

JOHNSON, KRAUSS, and BURTON 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Sergeant WILLIAM L. RUBINO 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20100675 

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood 

James L. Varley, Military Judge 

Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial & recommendation) 

Colonel Stuart W. Risch, Staff Judge Advocate (addendum) 

For Appellant: Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Imogene M. 

Jamison, JA; Major Richard E. Gorini, JA; Captain James S. Trieschmann, Jr., JA 

(on brief). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Major Julie A. Glascott, JA; 

Captain Steve T. Nam, JA (on brief). 

22 June 2012 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

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

pursuant to his pleas, of false official statement, aggravated sexual assault of a 

child, and abusive sexual contact with a child, in violation of Articles 107 and 120, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 907, 920 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010) 

[hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct 

discharge, confinement for fifty-one months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The 

convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. 

This case is before the court for review under Article 66, UCMJ. We have 

considered the record of trial, appellant’s assignment of error, and the government’s 

answer. Though we do not find any actual prejudice to the appellant, we agree with 

appellant that the unexplained and excessive post-trial delay in the process of this 

case warrants relief. 
RUBINO—ARMY 20100675 

2

Here, appellant waived his right to an Article 32, UCMJ, investigation and 

pled guilty to all charges and specifications resulting in a record of trial transcript 

eighty-six pages in length. Time between sentence and action in this case was 289 

days. Neither convening authority nor staff judge advocate offered any explanation 

for the post-trial delay, either initially or in response to appellant’s complaint of 

excessive post-trial delay contained in his Rule for Courts-Martial 1105 submission. 

Even if we permit the government’s calculation, attributing only 218 days of 

unexplained delay to the convening authority, the length of delay without 

explanation, let alone justification, warrants relief under the particular 

circumstances of this case. Article 66(c), UCMJ. See United States v. Moreno, 63 

M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (creating a 120-day presumption of unreasonable delay). 

See generally United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362–63 (C.A.A.F. 2006); 

Moreno, 63 M.J. at 143; United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 224 (C.A.A.F. 2002); 

United States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 616–17 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2010). Reviewing 

the entire record of trial, and in light of the government’s failure to provide reasons 

for excessive post trial delay, along with the particular circumstances of this case, 

we find a reduction of two months in the sentence to confinement appropriate. 

Therefore, on consideration of the entire record and the assigned error, the 

findings of guilty are affirmed. However, in light of our reasons above, we find 

that, in relation to appellant’s sentence to fifty-one months confinement, only fortynine months should be approved. Therefore, the court approves only so much of the 

sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for forty-nine 

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

which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of his sentence set aside 

by this decision, are ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58b(c) and 75(a). 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.                         

Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT: