United States v. Private (E2) DANTE J. ELLIS
ARMY 20150827
| A.C.C.A. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Appellant, Pvt. Dante J. Ellis, pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to three specifications of absence without leave (Article 86, UCMJ).
- The military judge sentenced Ellis to a bad-conduct discharge, six months confinement, and reduction to E-1, with 44 days pretrial confinement credited.
- Convening authority, pursuant to a pretrial agreement, approved a bad-conduct discharge, 60 days confinement, and reduction to E-1, and credited 44 days confinement.
- The panel convened and sentenced on 18 December 2015; 243 days elapsed from sentence to action.
- Defense received the 92-page record of trial (ROT) 21 January 2016 and completed its review on 7 March 2016; defense requested and received a 20-day extension for submissions to the convening authority.
- Of the 243 post-trial days, the court attributed 20 days to the defense and 223 days to the government; the government could not explain the unexplained delay in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-trial delay was unreasonable and requires relief | Ellis argued post-trial delay presumptively unreasonable where action exceeded 120 days and merits sentence relief | Government conceded no record explanation for 223 days of government-attributable delay; no prejudice but delay unexplained | Court found a presumption of unreasonable delay and granted sentence relief despite no asserted prejudice or due-process violation |
| Proper allocation of delay between government and defense | Defense argued only 20 days should be charged to defense based on 20‑day extension | Government could not show record-based reasons to charge additional days to defense; review of trial counsel’s ROT review time could not be determined | Court charged 20 days to defense, 223 days to government; did not count uncertain time as defense delay |
| Standard for reviewing sentence after dilatory post-trial processing | Ellis asked court to reassess sentence under Article 66(c) in light of delay | Government acknowledged Article 66(c) requires considering unexplained post-trial delay | Court applied Article 66(c) and Tardif, affirming findings but reducing confinement due to delay |
| Appropriate remedy for unexplained post-trial delay | Defense sought full relief consistent with delay | Government offered no specific remedial proposal beyond record | Court affirmed findings; vacated portion of sentence and affirmed only bad-conduct discharge, 30 days confinement, reduction to E-1; ordered restoration of rights and privileges deprived by set-aside portion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (establishes presumption of unreasonable post-trial delay when convening authority action exceeds 120 days)
- United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (Article 66(c) review requires consideration of unexplained post-trial delay in assessing sentence)
- United States v. Banks, 75 M.J. 746 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (allocation rule: initial 10 days after ROT is government-attributable; next 20 days for defense if good-cause extension is shown)
- United States v. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000) (service court authority to provide sentence relief for dilatory post-trial processing)