U.S. v. Bodkins, 60 M.J. 322

Military Justice Personnel: Convening Authority: Action

1. the requirement to take post-trial action on the results of a court-martial is vested in a military commander, the convening authority, who performs this function with the assistance of his or her staff judge advocate
2. the responsibility of the convening authority to complete post-trial processing in a timely fashion is not dependent upon a request to do so from the accused

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. where the post-trial processing of a case is unreasonable, unexplained, and dilatory, the court of criminal appeals erred in asserting that the defense was required to ask for timely processing, and that failure to do so waived any right to relief
2. under United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002), the court of criminal appeals has broad discretion to grant or deny relief for unreasonable or unexplained post-trial delay, and a finding of specific prejudice is not required; the court has discretion to take into account the impact -- or lack thereof -- of any delay on the accused; in so doing, the court may consider the absence of a defense request for action as one factor among other considerations in assessing the impact of delay in a particular case, but it may not elevate that factor into the conclusive basis for denying relief by using the mere absence of a request to find waiver
3. the court of criminal appeals may rely upon continuing eligibility for limited military benefits as a factor in assessing the impact of post-trial delay, but it must do so in a manner that focuses on the circumstances of the particular case; because post-trial processing entails continuing eligibility for benefits in all cases, it is not appropriate to rely on the availability of benefits as a basis for denying relief in a particular case without relating it to the circumstances of the accused in that case

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Sentence appropriateness

1. a court of criminal appeals must review the record in each case referred to it and may affirm only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved; in performing its affirmative obligation to consider sentence appropriateness, the court must take into account all the facts and circumstances reflected in the record, including any unexplained and unreasonable post-trial delay

Miscellaneous Matters: Speedy Trial: Post-Trial

1. the responsibility of the convening authority to complete post-trial processing in a timely fashion is not dependent upon a request to do so from the accused
2. a court of criminal appeals must review the record in each case referred to it and may affirm only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved; in performing its affirmative obligation to consider sentence appropriateness, the court must take into account all the facts and circumstances reflected in the record, including any unexplained and unreasonable post-trial delay
3. where the post-trial processing of a case is unreasonable, unexplained, and dilatory, the court of criminal appeals erred in asserting that the defense was required to ask for timely processing, and that failure to do so waived any right to relief
4. under United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002), the court of criminal appeals has broad discretion to grant or deny relief for unreasonable or unexplained post-trial delay, and a finding of specific prejudice is not required; the court has discretion to take into account the impact -- or lack thereof -- of any delay on the accused; in so doing, the court may consider the absence of a defense request for action as one factor among other considerations in assessing the impact of delay in a particular case, but it may not elevate that factor into the conclusive basis for denying relief by using the mere absence of a request to find waiver
5. the court of criminal appeals may rely upon continuing eligibility for limited military benefits as a factor in assessing the impact of post-trial delay, but it must do so in a manner that focuses on the circumstances of the particular case; because post-trial processing entails continuing eligibility for benefits in all cases, it is not appropriate to rely on the availability of benefits as a basis for denying relief in a particular case without relating it to the circumstances of the accused in that case