UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

COOK, KRAUSS, and HAIGHT 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private First Class STEPHEN C. DAVIS 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20110330 

Headquarters, 82d Airborne Division 

Karin G. Tackaberry, Military Judge 

Colonel Lorianne M. Campanella, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan F. Potter, JA; Captain Robert A. 

Feldmeier, JA (on brief). 

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

Major Robert A. Rodrigues, JA; Captain Benjamin W. Hogan, JA (on brief). 

22 May 2014 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

HAIGHT, Judge: 

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

pursuant to his plea, of one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, in violation of 

Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 912a (2006) [hereinafter 

UCMJ]. Contrary to his pleas, the military judge also convicted appellant of two 

specifications of aggravated sexual assault and one specification of assault 

consummated by battery in violation of Articles 120 and 128, UCMJ (2006 & 

Supp. III 2010). The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence of a 

dishonorable discharge, confinement for six years, forfeiture of all pay and 

allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. Additionally, the convening authority 

credited appellant with 277 days of pretrial confinement. 
DAVIS—ARMY 20110330 

2 

This case is before us pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises one 

assignment of error, which merits discussion and relief.1

 Additionally, a related 

issue involving the Staff Judge Advocate’s (SJA) failure to comment on legal error 

also warrants discussion, but no additional relief. 

Background 

 

 Appellant’s general court-martial adjourned on 3 May 2011. On 

23 June 2012, 417 days later, the convening authority took action. These 417 days 

include an initial 227 days for the government to transcribe the 399-page record of 

trial and then an additional 76 days before the record was received by the military 

judge for authentication. The military judge authenticated the record six days later, 

on 7 March 2012. Following the convening authority’s action on 23 June 2012, 

another 37 days elapsed before this court received the record of trial from Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina on 30 July 2012. Approximately 22 months have now 

elapsed since that date. 

 

In the clemency matters submitted by defense counsel on behalf of appellant 

pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1105, in a paragraph titled 

“Dilatory Post-Trial Processing,” defense counsel alleged the government violated 

the post-trial processing standards recognized by our superior court in United States 

v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006), and by this court in United States v. 

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

Despite defense counsel’s specific reference to the government’s dilatory 

post-trial processing with multiple citations to legal cases and standards, the SJA, in 

her addendum to the convening authority, omitted any mention of this allegation of 

legal error.2

 The record of trial initially provided to this court contained no 

explanation for the delays in processing. In its response to appellant’s assignment 

of error before this court, the Government Appellate Division secured an affidavit 

from the convening authority’s current chief of military justice on 19 December 

2013. In his affidavit, the chief of military justice cited numerous reasons for the 

delays, to include court reporter shortages, a high volume of cases, efforts to process 

 

1

 Appellant also personally raises several issues pursuant to United States v. 

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), none of which merit discussion or relief. 

2 See United States v. Arias, 72 M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2013). In this case, 

any possible prejudice suffered by appellant due to the SJA’s failure to comment on 

a legal issue raised in appellant’s R.C.M. 1105 submission is fully and appropriately 

addressed and remedied by our resolution of the assigned error and the provided 

relief. 
DAVIS—ARMY 20110330 

3 

trials conducted at Fort Bragg through a convening authority located in Afghanistan, 

and challenges obtaining additional enlisted legal support due to the “all-volunteer 

nature of the 82d Airborne Division and the requirement to complete Airborne 

training.” 

Dilatory Post-Trial Processing 

 In Moreno, our superior court established timeliness standards for various 

stages of the post-trial and appellate process. 63 M.J. at 142-43. Specifically, 

action of the convening authority should be taken no later than 120 days after 

completion of the trial; the record of trial should be docketed with this court within 

30 days of the convening authority’s action; and this court should render its initial 

decision within 18 months of receiving appellant’s case. Id. Failure to satisfy any 

of these standards creates a “presumption of unreasonable delay that will serve to 

trigger the Barker four-factor analysis.”3

 

Here, the standard for each respective period of post-trial processing has been 

exceeded. Thus, the presumption of unreasonable delay has been triggered. 

However, despite these delays, as well as appellant’s assertion of this issue in his 

R.C.M. 1105 matters and before this court, and the unpersuasive nature of the 

government’s explanations4 for its dilatory processing, appellant is still not entitled 

to relief pursuant to Moreno. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he suffered 

any prejudice as a result of the delays, and we find this factor alone outweighs the 

first three to a degree that we can confidently conclude his due process rights were 

not violated as a result of the dilatory processing. Further, while the delay is 

excessive, it is not “so egregious that tolerating it would adversely affect the 

public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of the military justice system.” 

United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362 (C.A.A.F. 2006). However, this does not 

foreclose appellant from relief. 

Even in the absence of actual prejudice from unreasonable post-trial 

processing, this court is still authorized to grant relief for excessive delay in our 

assessment of the appropriateness of appellant’s sentence pursuant to Article 66(c), 

UCMJ. See United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 224 (C.A.A.F. 2002); Collazo, 53 

 

3

 (1) length of delay; (2) reasons for delay; (3) appellant’s assertion of the right to a 

timely review and appeal; and (4) prejudice to appellant. Moreno, 63 M.J. at 136-

41. 

4 See United States v. Arriaga, 70 M.J. 51, 57 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (“[P]ersonnel and 

administrative issues . . . are not legitimate reasons justifying otherwise 

unreasonable post-trial delay.”). 
DAVIS—ARMY 20110330 

4 

M.J. at 727. Here, a delay of nearly 14 months to process a 399-page record of trial 

coupled with an additional 37 days to transport the record to this court is excessive 

and warrants relief. Further, the 22-month period to complete appellate review 

before this court exacerbated the problem. As such, we provide relief in our decretal 

paragraph below. 

Conclusion 

The findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. After considering the entire record, 

appellant’s assigned error, and those matters personally raised by appellant pursuant 

to Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431, we affirm only so much of the sentence as provides for a 

dishonorable discharge, confinement for seventy (70) months, forfeiture of all pay 

and allowances, 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). 

Senior Judge COOK and Judge KRAUSS concur. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: