UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

KERN, ALDYKIEWICZ, and MARTIN 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private DAVID O. RAMIREZ, JR. 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20100441 

3rd Infantry Division and Fort Stewart 

Tara A. Osborn, Military Judge 

Colonel Jonathan C. Guden, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial & addendum) 

Lieutenant Colonel Shane E. Bartee, Acting Staff Judge Advocate (recommendation) 

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

Jamison, JA; Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA; Captain John L. Schriver, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Major Catherine L. Brantley, 

JA; Captain Michael J. Frank, JA (on brief). 

12 April 2013 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

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

pursuant to his pleas, of negligent homicide and endangering the welfare of a child, 

in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 

(2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a 

dishonorable discharge and confinement for fifty-four months. In accordance with a 

pretrial agreement, the convening authority only approved a sentence to a 

dishonorable discharge and confinement for four years. Appellant was credited with 

seven days of confinement against his sentence to confinement. 

Appellant raises three assignments of error for our review under Article 66, 

UCMJ, of which one merits discussion and relief. Though we do not find any 

prejudice, we agree with appellant that excessive post-trial delay in the processing 

of this case warrants relief. 

 
RAMIREZ—ARMY ARMY 20100441 

2 

 Appellant’s general court-martial adjourned on 20 May 2010. The record of 

trial is 653 pages long. While the defense counsel did not make a specific request 

for speedy post-trial processing pursuant to United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 

(C.A.A.F. 2006), she did highlight appellant’s pending expiration of service (ETS) 

date in the Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1105 matters, and the 

impact of the ETS on the military judge’s clemency recommendation. The staff 

judge advocate (SJA) did not provide any explanation to the convening authority for 

the delay nor did he recommend any corrective action. On 23 February 2011, 279 

days after the conclusion of trial, the convening authority took initial action. See 

Moreno, 63 M.J. at 142 (creating a presumption of unreasonable delay when more 

than 120 days elapse between the completion of the court-martial and the convening 

authority’s action). The office of the SJA provided a post-trial affidavit in response 

to appellant’s assignment of error alleging dilatory post-trial processing. The 

reasons for the delay included the untimely death of the civilian, senior court 

reporter, as well as the deployment of two military court reporters. The affidavit 

also states that the combined defense delay and the delay to authenticate the record 

of trial was 132 days. 

On 13 April 2011, 49 days after action by the convening authority, the case 

was docketed at the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. (creating a 

presumption of unreasonable delay when more than 30 days elapse between action 

and docketing of the case at the Court of Criminal Appeals). Review by defense 

appellate counsel was completed on 29 February 2012. The government appellate 

counsel submitted their brief to this court on 28 September 2012. Almost two years 

after the case was received, this court finished the review of appellant’s record. See 

id. (creating a presumption of unreasonable delay when it takes longer than eighteen 

months to complete appellate review). The total time from completion of trial until 

the decision in this case is over 1,000 days. 

Under Article 66(c), UCMJ, this court has the responsibility and the authority 

to assess the appropriateness of appellant’s sentence in light of the presumptively 

unreasonable delay at each stage of the post-trial processing of his case. See 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. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army 

Ct. Crim. App. 2000). Reviewing the entire record of trial, and in light of the 

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

sentence to confinement appropriate. 

CONCLUSION 

On consideration of the entire record, and appellant’s assigned errors, we hold 

the findings of guilty are correct in law and fact. Therefore, the findings of guilty 

are AFFIRMED. Based on the reasons outlined above, the court affirms only so 

much of the sentence as provides for a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 
RAMIREZ—ARMY ARMY 20100441 

3 

forty-seven months. 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: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: