## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before TOZZI, CELTNIEKS, and BURTON Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Sergeant ANDREW D. GRIFFITH United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20150195

Headquarters, 1st Ca valry Division

Kenneth W. Shahan , Military Judge Colonel Alison C. Martin, Sta ff Judge Advocate (pretrial)

Lieutenant Colonel Oren H. McKnell y, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Charles D. Lozano, JA; Captain Heather Tregle, JA; Captain Michael A. Go ld, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Li eutenant Colonel A.G. Courie, II I, JA; Captain Christopher A. Clausen, JA (on brief).

26 July 2016

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

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

TOZZI, Senior Judge:

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of conspiracy to obst ruct justice, and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, in violati on of Articles 81 and 112a Uniform Code of Military Ju stice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881 and 912a ( 2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judg e sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for three months, and reduc tion to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the findings and sentence as adjudged.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises one allegati on of error which merits discussion and relief. Th e matters raised by appellant pu rsuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) areGRIFFITH—ARMY 20150195

2 without merit. * Appellant asks this court to pr ovide appropriate re lief to remedy the dilatory post-trial processing of his case. We agree that re lief is approp riate in this case and grant thirty days confinement credit.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The convening authority took action 198 days after the sentence was adjudged, 181 of which are at tributable to the governme nt. It took forty-three additional days after convening authority ac tion for this court to receive the record

of trial. The record in this case consists of three volumes and the trial transcript is 276 pages. The governme nt provided no explan ation for this delay.

Although we find no due process violation in the post-trial processing of appellant’s case, we must still review the ap propriateness of the sentence in light of the dilatory post-trial proc essing. 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, 617 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2010); United States v. Collazo , 53 M.J. 721, 727 (A rmy Ct. Crim. App. 2000). We find relief from this court is appropriate as the unexplaine d delay could “adversely affect the public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of military justice system . . . .” Ney , 68 M.J. at 617. Thus, we provide reli ef in our decretal paragraph.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of th e entire record, the fi ndings of guilty are AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, we affirm only so much of

the sentence as extends to a bad-conduct discharge, two months and seventeen days of confinement, and a reduction to the grad e of E-1. All righ ts, privileges, and property, of which ap pellant has been depr ived by virtue of that portion of his sentence set aside by this de cision, are ordere d restored. See UCMJ arts. 58b(c), and 75(a).

* Appellant’s Grostefon matters included an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the entire record of tria l, we have considered the issue of

ineffective assistance of counsel and fi nd no merit. Add itionally, during appellant’s unsworn statement at trial, he specifically thanked his defense counsel for “doing the best that [they] could [do] for [him].”GRIFFITH—ARMY 20150195

3 Judge CELTNIEKS and Judge BURTON concur.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

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