United States v. Booth
ACM 38850
| A.F.C.C.A. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- Appellant (Airman Matthew M.R. Booth) pleaded guilty at a general court-martial to violating a lawful order, multiple wrongful uses of controlled substances (ecstasy, psilocybin, anabolic steroids), and wrongful distribution of mushrooms and steroids.
- Military judge sentenced Booth to a bad-conduct discharge, 9 months confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances for 9 months, and reduction to E-1; convening authority approved sentence reduced to 8 months confinement and 8 months forfeitures per the PTA.
- Convening authority action occurred 9 June 2015; the case was docketed at the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on 24 July 2015—45 days after action (15 days beyond the Moreno 30-day standard).
- Government explained the delay by correction of the Court-Martial Order (CMO), an extended federal holiday, blocking the record of trial, and a manning shortage at the base legal office.
- Appellant sought relief for unreasonable post-trial delay under Moreno/Tardif; the court evaluated the delay using the Moreno/Barker four-factor analysis and Article 66(c) authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 45-day delay from convening authority action to docketing violated Moreno and required relief | Booth argued the 15-day exceedance of the 30-day Moreno standard is presumptively unreasonable and warrants relief | Government explained delay due to CMO correction, a federal holiday, and staffing shortages; argued delay not egregious | Court held the 45-day delay was presumptively in excess of Moreno but, after Barker/Moreno factors, declined to grant relief |
| Whether Article 66(c) warrants sentence relief absent demonstrated prejudice for post-trial delay | Booth relied on Tardif to argue unexplained/unreasonable delay permits relief without actual prejudice | Government contended the delay was explained and not unreasonable or egregious | Court held Article 66(c) relief under Tardif not warranted because the delay was explained and not egregious |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (establishes 30‑day standard from action to docketing and four‑factor inquiry)
- United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (Article 66(c) can provide relief for unexplained and unreasonable post‑trial delay without showing prejudice)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four‑factor speedy trial balancing test)
- United States v. Allison, 63 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (de novo review of speedy post‑trial processing and harmlessness standard)
- United States v. Arriaga, 70 M.J. 51 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (applies Moreno/Barker framework for post‑trial delay)
- United States v. Mizgala, 61 M.J. 122 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (lists Barker factors for speedy processing)