UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

TOZZI, CELTNICKS and BURTON 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Sergeant MARCUS C. DANIELS 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20140538 

Headquarters, U.S. Army Alaska 

David L. Conn, Military Judge 

Colonel Tyler J. Harder, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) 

Colonel Erik L. Christiansen, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Charles Lozano, JA; Major Andres Vazquez, Jr., 

JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel A.G. Courie III, 

JA; Major Cormac M. Smith, JA; Captain Linda Chavez, JA (on brief). 

8 December 2016 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

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

pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of drunken operation of a vehicle and 

three specifications of service discrediting conduct when he misrepresented his rank 

on a credit union’s employment verification form in violation of Articles 111 and 

134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 911 and 934 (2006 Supp. V. 

2012; 2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge convicted appellant, contrary 

to his pleas, of six specifications of violating a general order in violation of Article 

92, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 

confinement for 180 days, and to be reduced to the grade of E-1. The convening 

authority approved the adjudged sentence. 

This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellate 

defense counsel assigns two errors to this court: appellant alleges his defense 
DANIELS— ARMY 20140538 

2

counsel was ineffective regarding submission of Rule for Courts-Martial 1105 

matters and excessive post-trial delay. We will defer ruling on these issues as well 

as matters appellant has raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 

(C.M.A. 1982). 

 After appellant was convicted, his defense counsel was transitioning out of 

the Army. Appellant released his assigned counsel and was assigned new defense 

counsel for post-trial matters. The newly assigned defense counsel submitted posttrial matters and clemency matters on behalf of appellant, which consisted of a 

memorandum with two enclosures: Memorandum for Record (MFR), dated 25 June 

2015, and a DCAP Form 6 (Detail and Release of Military Defense Counsel). 

Appellant claims he suffered prejudicial error because of the contents of the 

MFR. “Effective assistance of counsel is especially important during the post-trial 

phase because it is the accused’s best hope for post-trial relief.” United States v. 

Howard, 47 M.J. 104, 106 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (citations omitted). To ensure appellant 

receives his “best hope for post-trial relief,” we set aside the action and return the 

record of trial for a new staff judge advocate recommendation and action by a 

different convening authority. Additionally, the MFR dated 25 June 2015 will not 

be presented to this new convening authority unless appellant consents to its use. 

CONCLUSION 

The action of the convening authority dated 17 July 2015, is set aside. The 

record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General for a new staff judge 

advocate recommendation and action by a different convening authority in 

accordance with Article 60(c)-(e). The new convening authority will not consider 

the MFR dated 25 June 2015 without appellant’s consent. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: