UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

TOZZI, CAMPANELLA, and CELTNIEKS

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Private First Class CHRISTOPHER S. WILLHAUS

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20130146

Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division

Gregory A. Gross and James L. Varley, Military Judges

Colonel R. Tideman Penland, Jr., Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Amy E. Nieman, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Major A.G. Courie, III, JA; Major 

John K. Choike, JA; Captain Jaclyn E. Shea, JA (on brief).

11 May 2015

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

CAMPANELLA, Judge:

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

pursuant to his pleas, of violating a lawful general order, fleeing apprehension, 

reckless operation of a vehicle, and wrongfully communicating a threat, in 

violation of Articles 92, 95, 111, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 

U.S.C. §§ 892, 895, 911, 934 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge 

sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for eight 

months. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement convening authority approved only so 

much of the sentence as provided for a bad-conduct discharge and confinement 

for seven months.1

This case is before for review us pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. 

Appellant raises one assignment of error which warrants comment and relief.

 

1

Prior to action, the convening authority granted appellant’s request for deferral of 

automatic forfeitures until action. 
WILLHAUS —ARMY 20130146

2

Appellant requests appropriate relief to remedy the dilatory post-trial processing 

in his case. We agree that relief is appropriate. 

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Subtracting delay attributable to the defense in this case, t he convening 

authority took action over a year past the date sentence was adjudged. The 

record in this case consists of two volumes and the trial transcript is 250 pages. 

Although we find no due process violation in the post-trial processing of 

appellant’s case, we must still review the appropriateness of the sentence in 

light of the 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); United 

States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 617 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2010); United States v. 

Collazo, 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000).

It took 261 days to transcribe the record in this case. Appellant raised 

the issue of dilatory post-trial processing in his Rule for Courts-Martial 1105-

1106 matters. The staff judge advocate acknowledged but did not explain the 

delay to the convening authority. While the government has since explained 

the reasons for delay, documented reasons for delay should be made part of 

the record and available for review at all relevant times, including convening 

authority action. See United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 143 (C.A.A.F. 

2006) (“We expect convening authorities, reviewing authorities and the 

Courts of Criminal Appeals to document reasons for delay and to exercise the 

institutional vigilance that was absent in Moreno's case.”); see also United 

States v. Canchalo, 64 M.J. 245 (C.A.A.F. 2007); United States v. Arias, 72 

M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2013); United States v. Bauerbach, 55 M.J. 

501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2001).

We find that the reasons offered by the government are unreasonable 

under the totality of circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of guilty are

AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, however, we affirm 

only so much of the sentence as extends to a bad-conduct discharge, and 

confinement for six months. All rights, privileges, and property, of which 

appellant has been deprived by virtue of this decision setting aside portions 

of the findings and sentence are ordered restored.
WILLHAUS —ARMY 20130146

3

Senior Judge TOZZI and Judge CELTNIEKS concur.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT: