## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before TOZZI, CELTNIEKS, and BURTON Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Staff Sergeant RANDAL C. RUCKER United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20140845

Headquarters, Eighth Army Mark A. Bridges, Military Judge Colonel Craig A. Meredi th, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial & addendum) Lieutenant Colonel Walter Narramore, Acti ng Staff Judge Advoca te (recommendation)

For Appellant: Mr. Guy L. Womack, Esqu ire (argued); Captain Cody D. Cheek, JA; Mr. Guy L. Womack, Esquire (on brief).

For Appellee: Captain Jennifer A. Donahu e, JA (argued); Lieu tenant Colonel A.G. Courie III, JA; Major Melissa Dasgupta Smith, JA; Captai n Jennifer A. Donahue, JA (on brief).

8 March 2017

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

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

Per Curiam:

A panel of officers and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of maltreating a subordinate, four specificat ions of abusive sexual cont act, and one spec ification of assault consummated by battery in violatio n of Articles 93, 120, and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 893, 920, 928 ( 2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The panel sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinem ent for one year, and

reduction to E-1. Th e military judge credite d appellant with 30 days of confinement credit. The convening author ity approved the sentence as adjudged, including the

confinement credit.RUCKER—ARMY 20140845

2 This case is before us for review under Article 66, UCMJ. Appellate defense counsel assigns three errors to this court, and appellant personally raises matters

pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A . 1982). After due consideration, we find the assi gned errors are without merit, as are all bu t one of the

matters raised under Grostefon . Specifically, appellant asks this court to provide appropriate relief to remedy the dilatory po st-trial processing of his case. We agree relief is appropriate and redu ce the approved sentence to conf inement by thir ty days in our decretal paragraph.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The convening authority took action 378 days after th e sentence wa s adjudged; 351 days are attributable to the government. The record in this case co nsists of four volumes, and the trial transc ript is 533 pages. Alth ough we find no due process violation in the post-t rial processing of ap pellant’s case, we mu st 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] requi red to determine what findings and sentence ‘should be approved,’ based on all the facts and

circumstances reflected in the record, includi ng 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 (Arm y Ct. Crim. App. 2010);
United States v. Collazo , 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000).

The government took 103 days to transcribe the reco rd of trial and serve it on appellant’s defense counsel for authenticati on. The military ju dge, however, did not

receive the record of trial for authentication un til 297 days after the sentence was adjudged. Appellant submitted no requests for speedy post-trial processing, and did not allege the delay c onstituted legal error in his post -trial submission pursuant to
Rules for Courts-Martial 1 105 and 1106. The government did not mention the delay in its post-trial submissions, and the co nvening authority appr oved the sentence as adjudged per the recommendati on of the staff judge advocat e. Finally, there are no

memorandums in the record ex plaining this delay. Under the circumstances, we find relief in this case is appr opriate because the delay betw een announcement of sentence and action could “adversely affect the public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of the military justi ce system . . . .” Ney , 68 M.J. at 617.RUCKER—ARMY 20140845

3 CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the entire record, th e findings of guil ty are AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, ho wever, we affirm onl y so much of the sentence as provides for a dishonorable di scharge, confinement fo r eleven months, and reduction to E-1. All righ ts, privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of his se ntence set aside by this decision, are

ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58a(b), 58b(c), 75(a).

FOR THE COURT:

SHELLEY GOODWIN-MATHERS Acting Clerk of Court

SHELLEY GOODWIN-MATHERS Acting Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: