United States v. Dize

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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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