## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before HAIGHT, MULLIGAN, and WOLFE Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist TIMOTHY T. MCLEOD United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20140296

Headquarters, 1st Ca valry Division Rebecca K. Connally, Military Judge

Colonel R. Tideman Pe nland, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial)

Lieutenant Colonel Alison C. Martin , Staff Judge Advo cate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Ch arles D. Lozano, JA; Major M. Patrick Gordon, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA, Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Captain Samuel E. Landes, JA (on brief).

29 February 2016

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

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

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant, in accordance with his pleas, of two specifications of the wrongful sale of military property, two specifications of larceny, and tw o specifications of housebreaking, in

violation of Articles 108, 121, and 130, Uniform Code of Milit ary Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 908, 921, and 930 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence of a bad-conduct disc harge and confinement for ninety days.

This case is before us fo r review pursuant to Arti cle 66, UCMJ. Appellant’s sole assigned error merits brief discussion and relief.

Appellant complains he suffe red an undue, ye ar-long post-trial delay. This guilty-plea court-martial was held on 8 Apri l 2014. Despite a wr itten request to the staff judge advocate (SJA) by appellant for speedy po st-trial processing, the relatively short, 134-page record of tria l was not authenticated until 18 NovemberMCLEOD—ARMY 20140296

2 2014. Then, the SJA’s post-trial recommendation (SJA R) was not signed until 16

December 2014 and not serv ed until 5 January 2015.

The defense did not reques t any delay and submitte d its Rule for CourtsMartial 1105 matters a mere ten days later, in which appellant “petitioned for correction of the legal error” of untimely post-trial proces sing. In her addendum to the SJAR, the SJA stated no corrective act ion was necessary as she disagreed with the claim of legal erro r. She then advised the conven ing authority that “[t]hough not reflected in my previous a dvice, dated 16 December 2014, a deferment of automatic forfeitures was approved on 3 September 2014 until initial action.” This advice left the convening authority with the impression that some favorabl e action, at least monetarily, had already been taken with respect to appell ant. On 29 January 2015, the convening authority took action, providing no re lief on the sentence and approving it as ad judged. Contrary to what is stated in th e addendum, the previous convening authority, on 3 September 2014, actually disapproved appellant’s request

for deferment of automatic forfeitures.

Beyond the post-trial delay and processing errors up until the point of action, more troubling is that this court did not re ceive the record of tr ial for docketing until 8 April 2015, more than two months after action.

We find no reasonable explan ation for the delay and processing errors in this case and accordingl y provide relief. See United States v. Collazo , 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000) (Army Court re ferring to its Article 66(c), UCMJ, power when providing relief fo r the cumulative effect of po st-trial delay as well as post-trial proces sing errors); see also United States v. Moreno , 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (governm ent failure to docket record of trial with respective service Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty da ys of convening auth ority’s action creates presumption of un reasonable delay).

The findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. After consid ering the entire record, the court AFFIRMS only so much of the sentence as provide s for a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for sixty days. All rights, privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of th e sentence set aside by this decision are ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58b(c) and 75(a).

FOR THE COURT:

JOHN P. TAITT Chief Deputy Clerk of Court JOHN P. TAITT Chief Deputy Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: