## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before WILSON, HAIGHT, and WOLFE Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist CHRIST OPHER L. GOFFE United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20120201

Headquarters, III Co rps and Fort Hood Kirsten Brunson, Military Judge Colonel Stuart W. Risch, Sta ff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Colonel Richard W. Rousseau, St aff Judge Advocat e (post-trial)

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

For Appellee: Major A.G. Courie III, JA; Major Da niel 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 a ssault consummated by battery, in violation of Article 128, Unif orm Code of Militar y Justice, 10 U.S. C. § 928 (2006 & Supp. IV) [hereinafter UCMJ ]. Then, a panel composed of officer and enlisted members convicted appellant, c ontrary to his pleas, of on e specification of attempted rape, one specification of wi llfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, one specification of rape, five specificati ons of assault cons ummated by battery 1 , and one specification of wrongful ly communicating a threat, in violatio n of Articles 80,

1 Two of the specifications of assault consummated by battery of which appellant
was convicted were lesser-inc luded 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, an d 134, UCMJ. 2 The panel sentenced appe llant to a di shonorable discharge and 3,649 da ys of confinement. 3 The convening auth ority approved the adjudged sentence as well as 517 da ys of pretrial co nfinement credit.

This case is now before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises six assignments of error, one of which merits discus sion and relief.

Appellant’s trial concluded on 1 March 2012. The af fidavits submitted by the government show no effort was made to transcribe the reco rd for nearly a year. On 27 February 2013, the transc ript was sent to a civilia n court-reporting company
where it was transcri bed 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 reco rd of trial. After the military judge authenticated the record, it took a further 136 days until the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) signed the recommendati on (SJAR). That is, it to ok over four and a half months (and longer than the 120 days allotted for the reasonable post-trial processing of th is entire case, United States v. Moreno , 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006)) for the SJA to prepare and sign a ro utine legal memorandum that is less than a page and a half in length. The defense counsel then submitte d matters under Rule for Courts-Martial 1105 in twenty-three da ys, specifically rais ing the unacceptable post-trial delay in the case. Notwithstanding the id entification of pos t-trial delay, it then took nearly thre e months for the SJA to prepar e 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 auth ority took action.

Although we find no du e process violation 4 in the post-trial processing of appellant’s case, we must stil l 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) (Pur suant to Article 66( c), UCMJ, service courts are “required to determine what findings an d sentence ‘should be approv ed,’ based on all the facts

and circumstances reflected in the r ecord, including th e unexplained and unreasonable post-trial delay.”); see generally Toohey , 63 M.J. at 362-63; United States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 617 (Arm y 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 fe male victims.

3 The panel acquitted a ppellant of one specifi cation of rape and on e specification of

assault consummate d by battery.

4 Appellant made no effort to demonstrate he was prej udiced by the delay under

Moreno , 63 M.J. at 138, nor do we find the delay was “so eg regious that tolerating it would adversely affect the pu blic’s perception of the fairness an d 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 un der Article 66(c), UCMJ, we determine that there has been unreasonable post-t rial delay in appe llant’s case. To remedy this error, after consideration of the entire record, we reduce appellant’s confinement by 90 days. To be clear, the se ntence 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 discip line, the needs of th e 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 othe r words, only because of the two-year, dilatory post-tri al processing of this case do we disturb an otherwise entirely appropriate sentence.

CONCLUSION

The findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. After consid ering the entire record, we AFFIRM only so much of the sentence as provides for a di shonorable discharge and confinement for 3,559 days . All rights, pr ivileges and prop erty, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of th at portion of the sentence set aside by this

decision are orde red 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: