UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

YOB, LIND, and KRAUSS

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Specialist JEFFERY I. HINZMAN

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20120441

Headquarters, Fort Bliss

David H. Robertson and Karen W. Riddle, Military Judges

Colonel Francis P. King, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial)

Colonel Edward K. Lawson, IV, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA; Captain Susrut A. Carpenter, JA (on 

brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA;

Major Robert A. Rodrigues, JA; Captain Steve T. Nam, JA (on brief).

16 December 2013

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

KRAUSS, Judge:

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

pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of conspiracy to commit larceny of 

military property, one specification of false official statement, three specifications 

of larceny of military property, and one specification of housebreaking in violation 

of Articles 81, 107, 121, and 130, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 

§§ 881, 907, 921, and 930 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority 

approved the adjudged sentence of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 

360 days, and reduction to the grade of E-1, and credited appellant with 6 days of 

confinement against the sentence to confinement. 

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

assigns as error excessive post-trial delay in the processing of his case. He also 

raises matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). 
HINZMAN — ARMY 20120441

2

Though we do not find any actual prejudice to the appellant, we agree that the 

excessive post-trial delay in the processing of this case warrants relief. 

The parties agree that the processing time attributable to the government is 

286 days from sentence to action. This amounts to 166 days beyond the point where 

we presume unreasonable delay in post-trial processing. United States v. Moreno, 

63 M.J. 129, 142-43 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (recognizing a presumption of unreasonable 

delay after 120 days of post-trial delay in processing a case). Though we find no 

prejudice as a result of the excessive delay, the court must still review the 

appropriateness of the sentence in light of unjustified dilatory post-trial 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 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 United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362-63 (C.A.A.F. 

2006); Moreno, 63 M.J. at 143; United States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 616-17 (Army Ct. 

Crim. App. 2010). 

Here, appellant demanded speedy post-trial processing in a memorandum 

addressed to the Staff Judge Advocate 109 days after appellant’s sentence was 

imposed. Appellant again complained of excessive post-trial delay in his post-trial 

matters submitted 294 days after the sentence was imposed. Though the staff judge 

advocate addressed this complaint in the addendum to his original recommendation 

and the convening authority took action within 3 days of appellant’s post-trial 

submissions, no explanation for the delay,

*

either at the time or before this court,

was ever provided, and no clemency was granted by the convening authority. In 

addition, appellant’s request for deferment of his reduction in rank and automatic 

forfeitures was disapproved. Under these circumstances, given the 109-page record 

of trial involving charges of no great complication, we find it appropriate to set 

aside 30 days of appellant’s sentence to confinement. See United States v. Harvey, 

64 M.J. 13, 23 (C.A.A.F. 2006); Tardif, 57 M.J. at 224.

The findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. After consideration of the entire 

record, including those matters personally raised by appellant pursuant to Grostefon, 

the court affirms only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct

discharge, confinement for 330 days, 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). 

 

*

Included in the record, as an attachment to the authentication page, is the military 

judge’s explanation for the passage of 22 days from her receipt of the record to the 

date she completed authentication.
HINZMAN — ARMY 20120441

3

Senior Judge YOB and Judge LIND concur.

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT: