United States v. Pendley
ACM S32393
| A.F.C.C.A. | May 22, 2017Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to multiple specifications of wrongful use of opium (10 occasions) and cocaine (3 occasions) between June 1, 2014 and April 30, 2015.
- Military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 30 days confinement, and reduction to E-1; convening authority approved a bad-conduct discharge, 15 days confinement, and reduction to E-1.
- Record of trial was forwarded to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) but arrived 52 days after convening authority action due to Federal Express delivery issues (package held in Tennessee and subsequently returned and re-sent).
- Appellant sought sentence relief under United States v. Tardif and argued his due process right to timely post-trial review was violated by the 52-day delay between action and docketing.
- AFCCA reviewed the delay under Moreno and Barker factors, found the 52-day interval presumptively unreasonable but identified no cognizable prejudice to Appellant, and declined to grant Tardif/Article 66(c) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 52-day delay between convening authority action and docketing violated Appellant's due process right to speedy post-trial review | Appellant argued the post-trial delay was presumptively unreasonable under Moreno and merited meaningful sentence relief (Tardif) | Government explained delay resulted from courier delivery problems and re-sending of the record; no bad faith or institutional neglect | Court: Delay triggered Moreno review but no due process violation because Appellant showed no prejudice and delay not so egregious as to impair public confidence; no Tardif relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.) (framework for Article 66(c) sentence relief for post-trial delay)
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.) (presumptive standards for unreasonable post-trial delay and Barker-factor analysis)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy trial/delay balancing test)
- United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353 (C.A.A.F.) (no due process violation absent prejudice unless delay is egregious enough to harm public perception)
- United States v. Dunbar, 31 M.J. 70 (C.M.A.) (administrative forwarding delays are the least defensible post-trial delays)
- United States v. Gay, 74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.) (factors to consider when exercising Article 66(c) relief for delay)