United States v. Lee, 2013 WL 1305600

In 2005, appellant was convicted by general court-martial of multiple offenses including burglary, conduct unbecoming, fraternization, and indecent assault; sentence included confinement, forfeiture, and dismissal.
We affirmed most convictions in 2007, set aside some specifications, and remanded; CA approved sentence except dismissal.
CAAF remanded for fact-finding on potential conflict of interest; subsequent remands led to further fact-finding and rehearing in 2011.
In 2012, appellant pled guilty to two Article 133 specifications under a pretrial agreement; the government dismissed other charges and the CA approved a reduced sentence.
The current findings arise from a reformulated Article 133 charge not specifically authorized for rehearing, with a sentence below Article 66(b)(1) jurisdictional threshold.
Appellant assigns errors alleging due process delay, post-trial processing issues, and failure to reconsider Article 13 confinement credit; government seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction after rehearing and reformulation	Lee argues rehearing ended prior trial; no jurisdiction over new charge.	Government contends jurisdiction persists post-remand under Article 66.	Court retained jurisdiction; reformulated charge did not deprive jurisdiction.
Statute of limitations on the new charge	Lee asserts the charge is time-barred.	Government contends amendments outside limitations permitted; tolling applies.	Not barred; statute tolled appropriately; amendments permitted.
Due process delay under Moreno	Lee argues 2,654-day delay was unreasonable.	Government contends extensive appeal proceedings were necessary for due process.	No due process violation; delay not unreasonable given complex proceedings.
Confinement credit reconsideration/plain error	Lee contests failure to reconsider Article 13 confinement credit after sentencing.	Government defers to prior rulings and post-trial processing.	No plain error found; no adjustment required.

United States v. Johnson III, 45 M.J. 88 (C.A.A.F.1996) (jurisdiction under Article 66 survives remand actions)
Boudreaux v. United States, 28 M.J. 181 (C.M.A.1989) (jurisdictional duties after appellate review)
United States v. Davis, 63 M.J. 171 (C.A.A.F.2006) (appeal, new trial, sentence rehearing, and new review procedures)
United States v. Miller, 38 M.J. 121 (C.M.A.1993) (absence of limitations bar for sworn charges; amendments permitted)
United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir.2011) (amendments to charges need not broaden the original scope)
United States v. Grady, 544 F.2d 598 (2d Cir.1976) (statute tolling resumes if indictment is dismissed)