## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before CELTNIEKS, SCHASBERGER, and BURTON Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist JOSE PH R. SPARKS United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20160099

Headquarters, 82d Airborne Division Richard J. Henry, Military Judge
Lieutenant Colonel Susan K. McConnel l, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Colonel Travis L. Rogers, Sta ff Judge Advocate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Melissa R. Covolesky, JA; Capt ain Katherine L. DePaul, JA; Captain Joshua B. Fix, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Tania M. Martin, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Eric K. Stafford, JA; Major Michael E. Korte, JA (on brief).

31 August 2017

---------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of four specifi cations of conspiracy to commit larceny, four specifications of larceny, an d two specifications of unlaw ful entry, in violation of Articles 81, 121, and 134, Uniform Code of M ilitary Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 921, 934 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sent enced appellan t to a badconduct discharge, confinement for thirty m onths, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The military judge granted on e day of confinement credit. The convening authority approved a bad-conduct disc harge confinement for twenty-six months, reduction to the grade of E-1, and one da y of confinement credit.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises one assignment of erro r. Appellant asks this c ourt to provide appropriate relief to remedy the dilatory post-trial pr ocessing of his case. We agree relief is appropriate in this case and grant ten days confinement cr edit. The matters personally raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), are without merit.SPARKS—ARMY 20160099

2 LAW AND DISCUSSION

The convening authority took action 246 days after the sentence was adjudged, 238 days of which ar e attributable to the governm ent. The record in this
case consists of five volumes and the trial transcript is 508 page s. It took twenty days for the staff judge advocate (SJA ) to sign the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) and fift y-five days for him to si gn the Addendum to the SJAR (Addendum). The de fense counsel twice reques ted speedy post-trial processing. The first time was at the conclusi on of trial, and th e second time was on day 120–prior to the signing of the SJAR or the Addendum. While the Addendum lays out a timeline of the post-trial processing from ad journment of the court-martial to receipt of the Rules fo r Courts-Martial [hereina fter R.C.M.] 1105 and 1106 matters, it does not include an explanation why it took fifty- five days from receipt of
the R.C.M. 1105 and 1106 matters until the signing of the Addendum. Nevertheless, the SJA concluded the government diligently attempted to protec t appellant’s posttrial due process rights.

Although we find no due process violation in the post-trial processing of appellant’s case, we must stil l review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the dilatory post-trial proc essing. 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 senten ce ‘should be approv ed,’ based on all
the facts and circumstances reflected in the record, in cluding the une xplained 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 (A rmy Ct. Crim. App. 2000). We find relief from this court is appropriate as the unexplaine d delay could “adversely affect the public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of military justice system . . . .” Ney , 68 M.J. at 617. Thus, we provide reli ef in our decretal paragraph.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of th e entire record, the fi ndings of guilty are AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, we affirm only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, twenty-five months and twenty days confinemen t, and reduction to the grade of E-1. All righ ts, privileges, and property, of which appella nt has been deprived by virt ue of that portion of the sentence set aside by this de cision, are ordere d restored. See UCMJ arts. 58a(b), 58b(c), 75(a).SPARKS—ARMY 20160099

3 FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: