United States v. Specialist WILLIAM C. MILLAY
ARMY 20130341
| A.C.C.A. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Appellant Specialist William C. Millay pled guilty at a general court-martial to multiple offenses including attempted espionage, making a false official statement, violating 18 U.S.C. § 793(d), and solicitation to commit espionage; panel sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge, 19 years confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E-1.
- Military judge credited 535 days of pretrial confinement; convening authority approved a sentence of dishonorable discharge, 16 years confinement, forfeiture, and reduction to E-1, and approved the 535 days credit pursuant to a pretrial agreement.
- The panel completed sentencing on 15 April 2013; post-trial processing through action and appellate filings involved lengthy delays due to classified material handling and other processing steps.
- Of 613 days from sentence to convening-authority action, the court attributed 20 days to defense and 593 days to the government; the convening authority acted on 19 December 2014.
- Appellant did not assert speedy post-trial rights until appeal and claimed no specific prejudice from delay; this court reviewed appropriateness of findings and sentence under Article 66(c) in light of delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 593-day government post-trial delay required relief | Gov't: delay largely justified by case complexity and classified-record handling | Millay: (appellant) argued for relief based on dilatory post-trial processing though he asserted no specific prejudice | Court found no due-process violation but granted sentence relief for unreasonable delay under Article 66(c) |
| What relief is appropriate when unreasonable post-trial delay is found | Gov't: maintain approved sentence given complexity and eventual action | Millay: sought reduction of sentence or other relief because of the unexplained/unreasonable delay | Court affirmed findings but reduced confinement from 16 years to 15 years, 11 months; restored rights/property for set-aside portion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.) (presumption of unreasonable delay when convening authority fails to act within 120 days of trial)
- United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.) (service courts must determine what findings and sentence should be approved considering unreasonable post-trial delay)
- United States v. Banks, 75 M.J. 746 (C.A.A.F.) (allocation of responsibility for post-trial processing periods between government and defense)
- United States v. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721 (Army Ct. Crim. App.) (court may provide relief for unexplained post-trial delay)
- United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.) (matters personally raised by appellant review standard)