United States v. Private E2 GREGORY L. BENSON

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before JOHNSON, COOK, and BAIME Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Private E2 GREGORY L. BENSON United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20071217 Headquarters, 19th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) (trial) Headquarters, United States Army Armor Center and Fort Knox (new action) Donna M. Wright, Military Judge Lieutenant Colonel Imogene M. Jamison, Staff Judge Advocate (trial) Colonel Robert J. Cotell, Staff Judge Advocate (new recommendation and action) For Appellant: Colonel Mark Tellitocci, JA; Captain Shay Stanford, JA; Captain Brent A. Goodwin, JA (on brief). For Appellee: Colonel Norman F.J. Allen III, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Martha L. Foss, JA; Major Adam S. Kazin, JA; Captain Nicole L. Fish, JA (on brief). 29 January 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON FURTHER REVIEW --------------------------------------------------------------- Per Curiam: A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer (two specifications), violating a lawful general order (two specifications), and larceny (four specifications), in violation of Articles 90, 92, and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. §§ 890, 892, and 921, respectively. The court sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, twenty-two months confinement, and reduction to Private E1. The convening authority reduced the sentence to confinement to sixteen months and approved the remainder of the adjudged sentence. When we first received the record to trial pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ, it was missing the staff judge advocate’s post-trial recommendation (SJAR) prepared under Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1106. On 23 July 2009, we set aside the convening authority’s initial action, dated 14 April 2008, and returned the record of trial to The Judge Advocate General for a new SJAR and a new action by the same or a different convening authority in accordance with Article 60(c)-(e), UCMJ. The new convening authority approved the exact same sentence as the original convening authority. DISCUSSION Appellant once again alleges excessive post-trial delay in violation of United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006). Under Article 66, UCMJ, we must determine what findings and sentence should be approved based on all the facts and circumstances reflected in the record, to include unexplained and unreasonable post-trial delay. United States v. Bodkins, 60 M.J. 322, 324 (C.A.A.F. 2004); United States v. Garman, 59 M.J. 677, 679 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2003). Unexplained delays in excess of 120 days from adjournment to action by the convening authority are presumptively unreasonable. Moreno, 63 M.J. at 143. A presumption of delay also exists when the ROT is not docketed by a service Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days of the convening authority’s action. Id. In this case, appellant has not demonstrated prejudice due to the delay between trial and action; however, the unexplained and unreasonable 156-day delay between action and receipt of the record of trial at the Army Court of Criminal Appeals warrants sentence relief. See United States v. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000). Considering the record as a whole and the totality of the circumstances surrounding appellant’s case, we will grant appellant one month of confinement relief in our decretal paragraph. DECISION The findings of guilty are affirmed. After considering the entire record, including those matters personally raised by appellant, this court affirms only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for fifteen months, and reduction to the grade of Private E1. 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). FOR THE COURT: MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. Clerk of Court