## 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 201 20441

Headquarters, Fort Bliss
David H. Robertson and Karen W. Riddle

, Military Judge s 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 20 13

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

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

KRAUSS, Judge :

A military judge sitting as a special court

- martial convicted appellant, pursuant to h is plea s , 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 Article s 81

, 1 07 , 12 1, and 130

, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § § 88 1, 9 07 , 92 1, and 930 (200 6 ) [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 agai nst the sentence to confinement

.

T his case is befo re the court for review under Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant assign s as error excessive post

- trial delay in the process ing 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 process ing of this case warrants relief.

The parties agree that the processing time attributable to the government i s 2 86 days from sentence to action. This a mounts to 1 6 6 days beyond the point where we presume unreasonable delay in post

- trial processing. U nited 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 ca se)

. Though we find no prejudice as a result of the excessive delay, t he 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 sen tence ‘ 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

a dvocate addressed this complaint in the addendum to his original recommendation and the convening authority took action wi thin 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. U nder the se circumstances, given the 109

- page record
of trial invol ving charge s 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 o f E

- 1. All r ights, privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of h is sentence set aside by t h is 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: