United States v. Roberson

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________

No. ACM 39166
________________________

UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Charlie L. ROBERSON
Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 9 November 2017
________________________

Military Judge: Mark W. Milam.
Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 3 months,
and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 29 June 2016 by GCM con-
vened at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.
For Appellant: Captain Patricia Encarnación Miranda, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Major Mary
Ellen Payne, USAF; Major Meredith L. Steer, USAF; Major Matthew L.
Tusing, USAF.
Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and MINK, Appellate Military Judges.
________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
________________________

PER CURIAM:
The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er-
ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
United States v. Roberson, No. ACM 39166

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).
Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. 1

FOR THE COURT

KATHLEEN M. POTTER
Acting Clerk of the Court

1 Although Appellant raises no specific assignment of error, we note the record of trial
was docketed with this court 32 days after the convening authority took action, exceed-
ing the 30-day threshold for a presumptively unreasonable post-trial delay. United
States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006). However, we perceive no prejudice
to Appellant from the delay. Having considered the relevant factors identified in
Moreno, 63 M.J. at 135, and finding no adverse impact on the public’s perception of the
fairness or integrity of the military justice system, we find no violation of Appellant’s
due process rights. See United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362 (C.A.A.F. 2006). We
have also considered whether relief for post-trial delay in the absence of a due process
violation pursuant to our authority under Article 66(c), UCMJ, is appropriate, and find
it is not. See United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225 (C.A.A.F. 2002); United States
v. Gay, 74 M.J. 736, 744 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015), aff’d, 75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016).