## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before TOZZI, CAMPANELLA, and CELTNIEKS Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Sergeant SHAWN F. HUDSON United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20140428

Headquarters, 82d Ai rborne Division Deidra J. Fleming, Military Judge (arraignment) Tara A. Osborn, Milita ry Judge (trial)

Colonel John N. Ohlweiler, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Lieutenant Colonel Susan K. McConnell, Ac ting Staff Judge Advo cate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Major Andres Vazquez, Jr., JA; Captain Jo hn L. Schriver, JA.

For Appellee: Major Da niel D. Derner, JA.

18 August 2015

---------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

TOZZI, Senior Judge:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of three specifications of fa ilure to go to hi s appointed place of duty, two specifications of absence without leave, and two specifications of wrongful use of cocaine in violation of Articles 86 and 112a Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 912a (2 012) [hereinafter UC MJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinemen t for five months, and reduction to the grad e of E-1. The convening au thority approved the badconduct discharge, confinemen t for 120 days, and reduction to the grade of E-1. Appellant received si xty-seven days of se ntence credit.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises no allegations of error. Appellant personally submitted one matter pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) wherein he as ks this court to provide appropriate re lief to remedy the dilatory post-t rial processing of his case.HUDSON—ARMY 20140428

2 We agree that relief is appropriate in this case and grant thir ty days confinement

credit.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The convening authority took action 353 days after the sentence was adjudged, 344 of which are attr ibutable to the government. The record in this case consists of two volumes, and the trial tran script is 156 pages. Although we find no due process violation in the post-trial proc essing of appellant’s case, we must still review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of th e unjustified dilatory posttrial 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 an d sentence ‘should be approved,’ base d on all the facts

and circumstances reflected in the r ecord, including th e 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 (A rmy Ct. Crim. App. 2000).

It took 239 days to serve the record of tria l on appellant’s de fense counsel in this case. It took sixty-four days for the military judge to authenticate the record of trial. The government provided an explanat ion in its post-trial submissions for this delay, citing a backlog of case s and short staffing of cour t reporters. As annotated on the authentication page, the military ju dge was on temporary duty away from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for a si gnificant period of time after receipt of the record of

trial for review and authen tication. Despite this expl anation, the delay between

announcement of sent ence and action could “adversely affect the pub lic’s perception

of the fairness and inte grity of military jus tice system . . . .” Ney , 68 M.J. at 617. Thus, we find that reli ef is appropriate under the facts of this case.

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 provides for a ba d-conduct discharge, confinement for three 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 sett ing aside portions of

the sentence are or dered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58b(c) , and 75(a).

Judge CAMPANELLA and Judge CELTNIEKS concur.HUDSON—ARMY 20140428

3 FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: