UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

TOZZI, CAMPANELLA, and CELTNIEKS 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Specialist JARRELL D. SPEIGHT 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20130837 

Headquarters, United States Army Alaska 

Robert Cohen, Military Judge 

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

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

For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Amy E. Nieman, JA; Captain 

Payum Doroodian, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Major A.G Courie III, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Major Daniel 

M. Goldberg, JA (on brief). 

22 July 2015 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

TOZZI, Senior Judge: 

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

pursuant to his plea, of absence without leave in violation of Article 86 Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military 

judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for four months, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The 

convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The appellant received one 

day of sentence credit. 

 This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. In his sole 

assignment of error, appellant asks this court to provide appropriate relief to remedy 

the dilatory post-trial processing of his case. We agree that relief is appropriate and 

grant thirty days confinement credit. 
SPEIGHT—ARMY 20130837 

2

LAW AND DISCUSSION 

The convening authority took action 434 days after the sentence was 

adjudged, 379 of which are attributable to the government. The record in this case 

consists of one volume, and the trial transcript is 87 pages. Although we find no due 

process violation in the post-trial processing of appellant’s case, we must still 

review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the 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 and sentence ‘should be approved,’ based on all the facts 

and circumstances reflected in the record, including the 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 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000). 

It took 139 days to transcribe the record in this case, and 126 days for the Staff 

Judge Advocate to sign the recommendation after receipt of the authenticated record 

of trial. The government provided an explanation in its post-trial submissions for 

this delay, citing a backlog of cases and short staffing of court reporters. Despite 

this explanation, relief is appropriate as the delay between announcement of 

sentence and action could “adversely affect the public’s perception of the fairness 

and integrity of the military justice system . . . .” Ney, 68 M.J. at 617. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of guilty are 

AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, however, we affirm only so 

much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for three 

months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. 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). 

Judge CAMPANELLA and Judge CELTNIEKS, concur. 

FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: