## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS



### UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 4 0135

Appellee ) )

v. ) ) ORDER Bradley D. L AMPKINS ) Airman First Class (E

- 3 ) ) U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Panel 1

On 12 August 202 0

, a military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas , of one charge and one specification of attempt to steal $9,999.00 (Charge I) in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 880; one charge and two specifications of larceny (Charge II) in violation of Article 121, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 921; and one charge and 43 specifications of making, drawing, or uttering check, draft

, or order without sufficient funds (Charge III) in violati on of Article 123a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 923a

. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 540 days, reduction to the grade of E

- 1, and a reprimand. *

On 24 June 2022, Appellant filed his b rief with this court setting forth assignments of error

. In his brief, Appellant’s second a ssignment of e rror ask s whether the r ecord of t rial (ROT) is incomplete because it is missing the military judge’s ruling on one o f two legal issues trial defense counsel specifically preserved for a ppellate review. Specifically, the ROT is missing Appellate Exhibit (A.E.) XXVIII, the military judge’s ruling on the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Speedy Trial. A review of the ROT confirms the military judge’s ruling regarding speedy trial is missing.

The Government acknowledges the ROT does not include the military judge’s ruling denying the defense’s motion to dismiss for speedy trial. The Government argues t hat Appellant’s requested remedy for correction pursuant

* Because Appellant was convicted of conduct spanning between on or about 28 October
2018 and on or about 7 August 2019 , references in this order to the punitive articles of
the UCMJ are to both the Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2016 ed.) and the Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (201 9 ed.) ( 2019 MCM )

. As charges were
referred to trial after 1 January 2019 , references to the Rules for Courts

- Martial and
all other UCMJ references are to the 2019 MCM

.United States v. Lampkins , No. ACM 40 135

2 to Rule for Courts Martial (R.C.M.) 1112(d)(2) is unwarranted

, as the Government has provided the missing exhibit through a motion to attach with an accompanying declaration from appellate government counsel attesting to the exhibit’s authenticity. We acknowledge the motion to attach was granted, but

we do not agree that this cures the defect without the exhibit actually being incorporated into the ROT

. “A substantial omission renders a record of tri al incomplete and raises a presumption of prejudice that the Government must rebut.” United States v. Henry , 53 M.J. 108, 111 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (citations omitted). “Insubstantial omissions from a record of trial do not raise a presumption of prejudice or af fect that record’s characterization as a complete one.” Id

. “Whether an omission from a record of trial is ‘substantial’ is a question of law which [appellate courts] review de novo .” United States v. Stoffer , 53 M.J. 26, 27 (C.A.A.F. 2000).
Each case is a nalyzed individually to decide whether an omission is substantial. United States v. Abrams , 50 M.J. 361, 363 (C.A.A.F. 1999).

Having reviewed the record, we find the omission of A.E. XXVIII, the military judge’s ruling on the issue of speedy trial

, is substantial.

R.C.M. 1112(d) provides for correction of a record of trial found to be incomplete or defective after authentication. R.C.M. 1112(d)(2)

– (3) describes the procedure for return of the record of trial to the military judge for correction. The

co urt notes that R.C.M. 1112(d)(2) requires notice and opportunity fo r the parties to examine and re spond to the proposed correction.

Accordingly

, it is by t he court on this 2 5 th day of October , 20 2 2

, ORDERED:

The record of trial is returned to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, to correct the record under R.C.M. 1112(d) to resolve a substantial issue with the post

- trial processing, insofar as the military judge’s ruling on speedy trial is missing from the ROT

. Thereafter, the record of trial will be returned to th e court not later than

14 November 2022 for completion of its appellate review under Article 66(d),
UCMJ , 10 U.S.C. § 866( d)

.United States v. Lampkins , No. ACM 40 135

3 If the record cannot be returned to the court by that date, the Government
will inform the c ourt in writing not later than 10 November 2022 of the status of the Government’s compliance with this order.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court