## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before TOZZI, CAMPANELLA, and CELTNIEKS Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist MICH AEL J. MOODY

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20121083

Headquarters, XVIII Airbor ne Corps and Fort Bragg

Tara A. Osborn and David H. Robertson, Military Judges Colonel Paul S. Wilson, Sta ff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Colonel Michael O. Lacey, Staf f Judge Advocate (recommendation)

Lieutenant Colonel Jerrett W. Dunlap, Jr., Staff Ju dge Advocate (addendum)

For Appellant: Mr. William E. Cassara, Es quire (argued); Captain Brian J. Sullivan, JA; Mr. William E. Cassar a, Esquire (on brief).

For Appellee: Captain Chri stopher A. Clausen, JA (argued); Major A.G Courie III, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Captain Christopher A. Clause n, JA (on brief).

29 October 2015

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

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

TOZZI, Senior Judge:

A general court-martial comprised of officer and enlisted members convicted appellant, contrary to his pl eas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact with a child, and one sp ecification of indecent liberties with a child, in viol ation of Article 120, Uniform Code of M ilitary Justice, 10 U. S.C. § 920 (2006) [h ereinafter UCMJ]. The panel sentenced appellant to eigh t years confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. The conv ening authority approved the find ings and senten ce as adjudged.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises four allegations of error, only one of which meri ts discussion and relief. Appellant asks this court to provide appropriate relief to remedy the dilatory posttrial processing of hi s case. We agree that relief is appropriate and grant thirty days

confinement credit.MOODY—ARMY 20121083

2 LAW AND DISCUSSION

The convening authority took action 468 days after the sentence was adjudged, 430 of which are attr ibutable to the government. The record in this case consists of seven volumes, a nd the trial transcript is 835 pa ges. Although we find no due process violation in the post-trial proc essing of appellant’s case, we must still review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of th e unjustified dilatory posttrial 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] required to determine what findings an d sentence ‘should be approved,’ base d on all the facts

and circumstances reflected in the r ecord, including th e 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 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2010); United States v. Collazo , 53 M.J. 721, 727 (A rmy Ct. Crim. App. 2000).

It took 183 days to transcri be the record of trial in th is case. It took over 113 days from the date of receipt for one of the military judg es to authenticate the record of trial. The government pr ovided an explanation in it s post-trial submissions for this delay, citing a backlog of cases, the government shutdown, a nd short staffing of court reporters. Further, as annotated in a memorandum, one of the military judges was on temporary duty away from Fort Bragg, North Ca rolina, for a significant period of time after receipt of the record of trial for review and authentication, presiding over a complicated capital murder trial at Fort Hood, Texas. Despite this explanation, the delay between announce ment 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. Thus, we find that re lief is appropriate

under the facts of this case.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of th e entire record, the fi ndings of guilty are

AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, however, we affirm only so much of the sentence as provides for conf inement for seven year s and eleven months and a bad-conduct discharge. 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).MOODY—ARMY 20121083

3 Judge CAMPANELLA and Ju dge CELTNIEKS concur.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: