UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

YOB, JOHNSON, and BURTON 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Specialist ROBERT A. CLARK 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20110179 

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood 

Susan K. Arnold, Military Judge 

Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Imogene M. 

Jamison, JA; Major Richard E. Gorini, JA; Captain Richard M. Gallagher, JA (on 

brief). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Major Julie A. Glascott, JA; 

Captain Steve T. Nam, JA (on brief). 

13 September 2012 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

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

pursuant to his pleas, of wrongful disposition of military property, two 

specifications of wrongful use of a controlled substance, wrongful possession of a 

controlled substance, wrongful distribution of a controlled substance, and larceny of 

military property, in violation of Articles 108, 112a, and 121, Uniform Code of 

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 908, 912a, 921 2006 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The 

military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for three 

years, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of 

Private E-1. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. 

This case is before the court for review under Article 66, UCMJ. We have 

considered the record of trial, appellant’s assignment of error, and the government’s 

answer. Though we do not find any actual prejudice to the appellant, we agree with 
CLARK—ARMY 20110179 

2

appellant that the unexplained and excessive post-trial delay in the processing of this 

case warrants relief. 

Here, appellant pled guilty to all charges and specifications resulting in a 

record of trial transcript 188 pages in length. Time between sentence and action in 

this case was 261 days. Neither the convening authority nor the staff judge advocate 

offered any explanation for the post-trial delay in this case. Even if we permit the 

government’s calculation, attributing only 233 days of unexplained delay to the 

convening authority, the length of delay without explanation, let alone justification, 

warrants relief under the particular circumstances of this case. Article 66(c), UCMJ. 

See United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 142-43 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (creating a 120-

day presumption of unreasonable delay); see generally United States v. Toohey, 63 

M.J. 353, 362–63 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 224 

(C.A.A.F. 2002); United States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 616–17 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 

2010). Reviewing the entire record of trial, and in light of the government’s failure 

to provide reasons for the excessive post-trial delay, along with the particular 

circumstances of this case, we find a reduction of one month in the sentence to 

confinement appropriate. 

Therefore, on consideration of the entire record and the assigned error, the 

findings of guilty are affirmed. However, in light of the reasons above, we find that, 

in relation to appellant’s sentence to three years’ confinement, only thirty-five 

months should be approved. Therefore, the court approves only so much of the 

sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for thirty-five 

months, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of 

Private 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). 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 JOANNE P. TETREAU 

 D of Court 

JOANNE P. TETREAULT ELDRIDGE 

Deputy Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: