There’s what appears to be a new published opinion posted on the Coast Guard Court’s website, even though it’s dated 24 September 2010. United States v. Medina, __ M.J. __, No. 1325 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 24, 2010). The opinion finds no due process violation resulting from unreasonable post-trial delay but awards relief as a sentence appropriateness matter pursuant to United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 224 (C.A.A.F. 2002). Chief Judge McClelland wrote for a unanimous court.
The court emphasized five periods of post-trial delay: (1) 50 days to transcribe a 218-page record; (2) 44 days between transcription and forwarding the ROT for the military judge’s authentication; (3) 25 days between the SJAR and CA’s action; (4) 16 days between CA’s action and forwarding the ROT to USCG HQ; and (5) 35 days between USCG HQ’s receipt of the ROT and docketing it with the Coast Guard Court. None of these delays were explained; they were merely attributed to “administrative processing.”
CGCCA applied the four Moreno/Barker v. Wingo factors, balanced them, and found no due process violation. But the court nevertheless held that relief was appropriate. The court disapproved two months of the adjuged, approved, and already served confinement and reduced the bust (formerly from E-6 to E-1) to reduction to E-2. But the Coast Guard Court left the BCD intact. Does anyone know whether now Gunner’s Mate Apprentice Medina will receive any practical benefit from the retroactive diminution in confinement and reduction?