United States v. Dize ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •               U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
    C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
    ________________________
    No. ACM S32425
    ________________________
    UNITED STATES
    Appellee
    v.
    Terry L. DIZE
    Airman Basic (E-1), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
    Decided 5 September 2017
    ________________________
    Military Judge: Matthew P. Stoffel.
    Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge. Sentence adjudged 20 May
    2016 by SpCM convened at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.
    For Appellant: Major Mark C. Bruegger, USAF; Major Rebecca J. Otey,
    USAF.
    For Appellee: Major Meredith L. Steer, USAF; Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.
    Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and MINK, Appellate Military Judges.
    ________________________
    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
    ________________________
    PER CURIAM:
    The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er-
    ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
    United States v. Dize, No. ACM S32425
    59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a),
    866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. *
    FOR THE COURT
    KURT J. BRUBAKER
    Clerk of the Court
    * Although Appellant raises no specific assignments of error, he notes the record of trial
    was docketed with this court 35 days after the convening authority took action, exceed-
    ing the 30-day threshold for a presumptively unreasonable post-trial delay. United
    States v. Moreno, 
    63 M.J. 129
    , 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006). However, he avers he suffered no
    prejudice from the delay, and we agree. Accordingly, having considered the relevant
    factors identified in 
    Moreno, 63 M.J. at 135
    , and finding no adverse impact on the pub-
    lic’s perception of the fairness or integrity of the military justice system, we find no
    violation of Appellant’s due process rights. See United States v. Toohey, 
    63 M.J. 353
    ,
    362 (C.A.A.F. 2006). We have also considered whether relief for post-trial delay in the
    absence of a due process violation pursuant to our authority under Article 66(c), UCMJ,
    is appropriate, and find it is not. See United States v. Tardif, 
    57 M.J. 219
    , 225 (C.A.A.F.
    2002); United States v. Gay, 
    74 M.J. 736
    , 744 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015), aff’d, 
    75 M.J. 264
    (C.A.A.F. 2016).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ACM S32425

Filed Date: 9/5/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/12/2017