United States v. Thomas, ACM 38977

Appellant, an Airman in training at Sheppard AFB, responded to a Craigslist "Casual Encounters" ad and began a month-long Yahoo! Messenger exchange with "Tina," an AFOSI undercover persona who identified herself as a 14-year-old dependent on base.
The electronic messages included explicit sexual descriptions; Appellant sent one photo of his penis and seven videos of himself masturbating and repeatedly pressed to meet "Tina" for sex, proposing times when she would skip school.
Appellant parked at the on-base residence "Tina" identified; agents apprehended him when they emerged from the house.
At trial Appellant conceded sending the messages and media but testified he believed "Tina" was an adult role-playing as a 14-year-old; he cited prior encounters where adults misrepresented their age/appearance.
A general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of attempted lewd act on a child under 16 (Article 80). The court sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge, six months confinement, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1; the convening authority approved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to prove attempt to commit lewd act on a child under 16	Prosecution: Chat logs, photos, videos, and messages show Appellant believed recipient was 14 and intended sexual gratification; substantial step toward meeting and consummation occurred	Appellant: He did not believe the correspondent was actually 14; thought an adult was role-playing, so lacked the required belief/intent	Conviction affirmed. Evidence legally and factually sufficient; reasonable inferences favor prosecution and appellate court independently finds guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Facially unreasonable post-trial delay (convening authority action exceeded 120 days) and due process/prejudice	Appellant: 145-day delay (25 days past Moreno 120-day benchmark) violated due process and caused particularized anxiety about confinement and clemency relief	Government: Delay attributable to heavy workload, prioritization at legal offices, and some judge review time; appellant raised delay late (clemency), and prejudice is slight	No due process violation. Barker factors examined; delay weighed modestly for appellant but reasons and lack of substantial prejudice favored government. No additional relief under Article 66(c) warranted

United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standards for appellate review of factual and legal sufficiency)
United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987) (legal- and factual-sufficiency standards articulated)
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (presumption of unreasonable post-trial delay where convening authority action exceeds 120 days)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy trial/delay balancing test applied to post-trial delay)
United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (courts may grant relief for excessive post-trial delay under Article 66(c) without finding due process violation)
United States v. Gay, 74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (factors for granting relief for excessive post-trial delay)
United States v. Barner, 56 M.J. 131 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (appellate courts must draw every reasonable inference in favor of the prosecution for legal sufficiency)
United States v. Lips, 22 M.J. 679 (A.F.C.M.R. 1986) (reasonable-doubt standard does not require evidence be free from conflict)