The accused shall be brought to trial within 120 days after the earlier of:

Preferral of charges;

Delay from the time of an offense to preferral of charges or the imposition of pretrial restraint is not considered for speedy trial purposes. See also Article 43 (statute of limitations). In some circumstances such delay may prejudice the accused and may result in dismissal of the charges or other relief.

The imposition of restraint under R.C.M. 304(a)(2)–(4); or

Entry on active duty under R.C.M. 204.

The date of preferral of charges, the date on which pretrial restraint under R.C.M. 304 (a)(2)-(4) is imposed, or the date of entry on active duty under R.C.M. 204 shall not count for purpose of computing time under subsection (a) of this rule. The date on which the accused is brought to trial shall count. The accused is brought to trial within the meaning of this rule at the time of arraignment under R.C.M. 904.

When charges are preferred at different times, accountability for each charge shall be determined from the appropriate date under subsection

of this rule for that charge.

In the event of dismissal of charges or mistrial, a new 120-day period begins as follows:

For an accused under pretrial restraint under R.C.M. 304(a)(2)-(4) at the time of the dismissal or mistrial, a new 120-day period begins on the date of the dismissal or mistrial.

For an accused not under pretrial restraint at the time of dismissal or mistrial, a new 120-day period begins on the earliest of:

the date on which charges are preferred anew;

the date of imposition of restraint under R.C.M. 304(a)(2)-(4); or

in the case of a mistrial in which charges are not dismissed or preferred anew, the date of the mistrial.

In a case in which it is determined that charges were dismissed for an improper purpose or for subterfuge, the time period determined under subsection (a) shall continue to run.

If the accused is released from pretrial restraint for a significant period, the 120-day time period under this rule shall begin on the earlier of

the date of preferral of charges;

the date on which restraint under R.C.M. 304(a) (2)-(4) is reimposed; or

date of entry on active duty under R.C.M. 204.

If notice of appeal under R.C.M. 908 is filed, a new 120-day time period under this rule shall begin, for all charges neither proceeded on nor severed under R.C.M. 908(b)(4), on the date of notice to the parties under R.C.M. 908(b)(8) or 908(c)(3), unless it is determined that the appeal was filed solely for the purpose of delay with the knowledge that it was totally frivolous and without merit. After the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals under R.C.M. 908, if there is a further appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces or, subsequently, to the Supreme Court, a new 120-day time period under this rule shall begin on the date the parties are notified of the final decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or, if appropriate, the Supreme Court.

If a rehearing is ordered or authorized by an appellate court, a new 120-day time period under this rule shall begin on the date that the responsible convening authority or, for charges and specifications referred by a special trial counsel, the special trial counsel receives the record of trial and the opinion authorizing or directing a rehearing. An accused is brought to trial within the meaning of this rule at the time of arraignment under R.C.M. 904 or, if arraignment is not required (such as in the case of a sentence-only rehearing), at the time of the first session under R.C.M. 803.

If the accused is committed to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization as provided in R.C.M. 909(f), all periods of such commitment shall be excluded when determining whether the period in subsection (a) of this rule has run. If, at the end of the period of commitment, the accused is returned to the custody of the general court-martial convening authority, a new 120-day time period under this rule shall begin on the date of such return to custody.

All periods of time during which appellate courts have issued stays in the proceedings, or the accused is absent without authority, or the accused is hospitalized due to incompetence, or is otherwise in the custody of the Attorney General, shall be excluded when determining whether the period in subsection (a) of this rule has run. All other pretrial delays approved by a military judge or the convening authority shall be similarly excluded.

Prior to referral, all requests for pretrial delay, together with supporting reasons and with notice to the defense, will be submitted to a convening authority with authority over the accused for resolution. The convening authority may delegate this authority to an Article 32 preliminary hearing officer. After referral, such requests for pretrial delay will be submitted to the military judge for resolution.

The decision to grant or deny a reasonable delay is a matter within the sole discretion of the convening authority or a military judge. Reasons to grant a delay might include, for example, the need for: time to enable counsel to prepare for trial in complex cases; time to allow examination into the mental capacity of the accused; time to process a member of the reserve component to active duty for disciplinary action; time to complete other proceedings related to the case; time requested by the defense; time to secure the availability of the accused, substantial witnesses, or other evidence; time to obtain appropriate security clearances for access to classified information or time to declassify evidence; or additional time for other good cause. Pretrial delays should not be granted ex parte, and when practicable, the decision granting the delay, together with supporting reasons and the dates covering the delay, should be reduced to writing.

Upon accused’s timely motion to a military judge under R.C.M. 905 for speedy trial relief, counsel should provide the court a chronology detailing the processing of the case. This chronology should be made a part of the appellate record.

A failure to comply with this rule will result in dismissal of the affected charges, or, in a sentence-only rehearing, sentence relief as appropriate.

Dismissal will be with or without prejudice to the Government’s right to reinstitute court-martial proceedings against the accused for the same offense at a later date. The charges must be dismissed with prejudice where the accused has been deprived of his or her constitutional right to a speedy trial. In determining whether to dismiss charges with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case that lead to dismissal; the impact of a re-prosecution on the administration of justice; and any prejudice to the accused resulting from the denial of a speedy trial.

In determining whether or how much sentence relief is appropriate, the military judge shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the accused’s demand for speedy trial, and any prejudice to the accused from the delay. Any sentence relief granted will be applied against the sentence approved by the convening authority.

See R.C.M. 707(c)(1) and the accompanying Discussion concerning reasons for delay and procedures for parties to request delay.

Except as provided in R.C.M. 910(a)(2), a plea of guilty that results in a finding of guilty waives any speedy trial issue under this rule as to that offense.

When considering the disposition of charges and the ordering of trials, a convening authority or special trial counsel shall give priority to cases in which the accused is held under those forms of pretrial restraint defined by R.C.M. 304(a)(3)-(4). Trial of or other disposition of charges against any accused held in arrest or confinement pending trial shall be given priority.