UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

WILSON, HAIGHT, and WOLFE 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Specialist CHRISTOPHER L. GOFFE 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20120201 

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood 

Kirsten Brunson, Military Judge 

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

Colonel Richard W. Rousseau, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) 

For Appellant: Captain Patrick J. Scudieri, JA; William E. Cassara, Esq. (on brief); 

Captain Patrick J. Scudieri, JA; William E. Cassara, Esq. (on reply brief). 

For Appellee: Major A.G. Courie III, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Captain 

Timothy C. Donahue, JA (on brief). 

4 November 2015 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

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

pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of assault consummated by battery, in 

violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 928 (2006 & 

Supp. IV) [hereinafter UCMJ]. Then, a panel composed of officer and enlisted 

members convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of attempted 

rape, one specification of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, one 

specification of rape, five specifications of assault consummated by battery1

, and 

one specification of wrongfully communicating a threat, in violation of Articles 80, 

 

1

 Two of the specifications of assault consummated by battery of which appellant 

was convicted were lesser-included offenses of attempted rape and attempting to kill 

an unborn child under Articles 80 and 119a, UCMJ, respectively. 
GOFFE—ARMY 20120201 

2 

90, 120, 128, and 134, UCMJ.2 The panel sentenced appellant to a dishonorable 

discharge and 3,649 days of confinement. 3 The convening authority approved the 

adjudged sentence as well as 517 days of pretrial confinement credit. 

This case is now before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. 

Appellant raises six assignments of error, one of which merits discussion and relief. 

Appellant’s trial concluded on 1 March 2012. The affidavits submitted by the 

government show no effort was made to transcribe the record for nearly a year. On 

27 February 2013, the transcript was sent to a civilian court-reporting company 

where it was transcribed in less than three weeks. Overall, excluding the time 

necessary for defense counsel to submit errata, it took the government 390 days to 

transcribe and assemble the 979-page record of trial. After the military judge 

authenticated the record, it took a further 136 days until the Staff Judge Advocate 

(SJA) signed the recommendation (SJAR). That is, it took over four and a half 

months (and longer than the 120 days allotted for the reasonable post-trial 

processing of this entire case, United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 

2006)) for the SJA to prepare and sign a routine legal memorandum that is less than 

a page and a half in length. The defense counsel then submitted matters under Rule 

for Courts-Martial 1105 in twenty-three days, specifically raising the unacceptable 

post-trial delay in the case. Notwithstanding the identification of post-trial delay, it 

then took nearly three months for the SJA to prepare the addendum to his SJAR and 

for the convening authority to act on the case. In total, 729 days expired between the 

conclusion of the court-martial and when the convening authority took action. 

Although we find no due process violation4

 in the post-trial processing of 

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

light of this excessive delay. 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 Toohey, 63 M.J. at 362-63; 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). 

 

2

 Appellant’s offenses included three different female victims. 

3

 The panel acquitted appellant of one specification of rape and one specification of 

assault consummated by battery. 

 

4

 Appellant made no effort to demonstrate he was prejudiced by the delay under 

Moreno, 63 M.J. at 138, nor do we find the delay was “so egregious that tolerating it 

would adversely affect the public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of the 

military justice system. United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362 (C.A.A.F. 2006). 
GOFFE—ARMY 20120201 

3 

In conducting our review under Article 66(c), UCMJ, we determine that there 

has been unreasonable post-trial delay in appellant’s case. To remedy this error, 

after consideration of the entire record, we reduce appellant’s confinement by 90 

days. To be clear, the sentence adjudged by the court-martial in this case was 

appropriate and adequately punished appellant for his violent offenses committed 

against three different victims. That is, the members adjudged a sentence that “best 

serve[d] the ends of good order and discipline, the needs of the accused, and the 

welfare of society.” See Dep’t of Army, Pam. 27-9, Legal Services: Military 

Judges’ Benchbook, para. 2-5-24 (10 Sep. 2014). In other words, only because of 

the two-year, dilatory post-trial processing of this case do we disturb an otherwise 

entirely appropriate sentence. 

CONCLUSION 

The findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. After considering the entire record, 

we AFFIRM only so much of the sentence as provides for a dishonorable discharge 

and confinement for 3,559 days. All rights, privileges and property, of which 

appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of the sentence set aside by this 

decision are ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58(b) and 75(a). 

 FOR THE COURT: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: