UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Second Lieutenant DAVID M. CAMPBELL

United States Air Force

ACM 38610

21 August 2015

Sentence adjudged 2 4 January 201 4 by GCM convened at Columbus Air
Force Base, Mississippi . Military Judge: Shaun Speranza

.

Approved Sentence: Dismissal and confinement for 15 day s

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Jeffrey A. Davis and Captain Travis L. Vaughan.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Major Roberto Ramirez and Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ALLRED

, TELLER, and SANTORO Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, doe s not serve as precedent

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.

SANTORO

, Judge :

A general court

- martial composed of officer members convicted the appellant, contrary to his plea, of the wrongful use of cocaine in violation of Ar ticle 112a, UCMJ

, 10 U.S.C. § 912a . The adjudged and approved sentence was a dismissal and confinement for 15 days

. Before us, the appellant seeks sentencing relief pursuant to United States v. Tardif

, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002). We disagree and affirm.ACM 3 8610 2 Background

The appellant traveled to Las Vegas, Nevada

, to attend a weekend bachelor party. Upon his return he was randomly selected to provide a urine sample as part of the

Air Force ’ s drug testing program. The metabolite of cocaine was detected in t he appellant ’ s urine. Following a rights advisement, the appellant told investigators that he

had shared a hotel room with several civilians and that some of the civilian attendees brought or obtained cocaine and other controlled substances. The appellan t said he was offered and declined pills but, after initially denying that he used cocaine, eventually told investigators that he did ingest cocaine on a single occasion while in Las Vegas.

Post

- Trial Processing Delay

Thirty

- two days elapsed between the convening authority ’ s action and the docketing of this case before this court. Under United States v. Moreno , 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006), the record should have been docketed with this c ourt within 30 days of the convening authority ’ s action.

We r eview de novo an appellant ’ s claim that he has been denied his due process right to a speedy post

- trial review and appeal. Moreno , 63 M.J. at 135. Because the

3 2

- day period in this case is facially unreasonable, see id . at 142, we examine the claim

under the four factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972): “ (1) the length of the delay ; (2) the reasons for the delay ; (3) the appellant ’ s assertion of the right to timely review and appeal; and (4) prej udice.” Moreno , 63 M.J. at 135. If we are able to conclude directly that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we do not need to engage in a separate analysis of each factor. See United States v. Allison

, 63 M.J. 365, 370 (C.A.A.F. 2006).

The appellant does not argue that he has been personally prejudiced by the delay. While we agree that Moreno violations are unacceptable, we find beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was not harmed by the two

- day delay and is thus not entitled to

r elief under Moreno

.

However, that does not end the inquiry, as we may grant sentence relief u nder Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), even when we find no prejudice in unreasonable post

- trial delays. United States v. Tardif , 57 M.J. 219 , 224 (C.A.A. F. 2002); see also United States v. Toohey , 63 M.J. 353, 362 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (finding delays were “ such that tolerating them would adversely affect the public ’ s perception of the fairness and integrity of the milit ary justice system ” ). However, “ [a]ppella te relief under Article 66(c) should be viewed as the last recourse to vindicate, where appropriate, an appellant ’ s right to timely . . . review. ” Tardif , 57 M.J. at 225.ACM 3 8610 3 We have examined the entirety of the post

- trial process. Aside from the two

- day delay in docketing the record with this court, the remainder of the post

- trial activities

occurred within established time standards

, and we detect nothing that would suggest this is a case in which the public ’ s perception of the fairness and integrity of the system could reasonably he questioned. We therefore decline to grant Tardif relief.

Conclusion

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). Accordingly, the findings and the sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court