## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before TOZZI, HERRING, and BURTON Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Sergeant TERRANCE T. JOHNSON United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20140297

Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division Rebecca K. Connally, Military Judge Colonel R. Tideman Penland Jr., Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Colonel Alison C. Martin, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Charles D. Lozan o, JA; Captain Heather L. Tregle, JA; Captain Matthew L. Jalandoni, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Li eutenant Colonel A.G. Courie, III, JA; Major Cormac M. Smith, JA; Captain Linda Chavez, JA (on brief).

19 December 2016

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

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

Per Curiam:

A panel of officer members convicted ap pellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of maltreatment of a subordinate and three specifications of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Articles 93 and 120, Unifor m Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 893 and 920 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The panel sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confin ement for one year, fo rfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a reduct ion to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant asserts two assignments of er ror, only one of which-dilatory post-trial processing-JOHNSON—ARMY 20140297

2 warrants discussion and relief. * We have considered th e six assignments of error personally raised by th e appellant pu rsuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and find they lack merit.

The convening authority took action 3 80 days after the se ntence was adjudged in this case, at least 326 da ys of which we attribute to the government. Although appellant does not identify how the post-trial delay cause d prejudice, and although we find no due process violat ion 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 proces sing. 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 senten ce ‘should be approv ed,’ based on all
the facts and circumstances reflected in the record, in cluding the une xplained 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, 6 17 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2010); United States v. Collazo , 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000).

The record in this case consists of 8 volumes and the trial transcript is 1001 pages. The staff judge advocate’s reco mmendation (SJAR) was completed on 17
December 2014 and se rved on appellant ninety-three days later , on 20 March 2015. The government provides no explanation for the over all delay in post-trial processing or the delay in serving the SJAR. The st aff judge advocate did not address either of these delays in he r addendum to the SJAR. Under the
circumstances of this case, we find the delay in post-trial pro cessing unreasonable.
Relief in this case is appropriate, as the delay be tween announcement of sentence and action could “adversely affect the public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of military justice system . . . .” Ney , 68 M.J. at 617. Accordingly, we provide relief in our decretal paragraph.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of th e entire record, the fi ndings of guilty are AFFIRMED. We affirm only so much of th e sentence as extend s to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for el even months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. All rights, privileges, and pr operty, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of this decisi on setting aside portions of the

* In the other as signment of erro r, appellant, relying upon the Supreme Court’s
decision in Elonis v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), asserts th e military judge committed plain error when she instructed the panel using a negligence standard for
maltreatment of a subordinat e. We find the holding in Elonis inapplicable to the
offense of maltreatment. See United States v. Chance , ARMY 20140072, 2016 CCA LEXIS 241 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 18 Apr. 2016 ) (mem. op.).JOHNSON—ARMY 20140297

3 findings and sentence are ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58a(b), 58b(c), and 75(a).

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: