CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

Recent ACCA Opinion: Feeney-Clark

8/13/2020

 
U.S. v. Feeney-Clark, Army 20180694, July 20, 2020
 
No Remedy For AWOL Soldier Who Experienced Unreasonable Post-Trial Delay

 
Synopsis: Joseph-Feeney Clark is a soldier who was charged with absence of leave, however over 300 days elapsed between his sentence and the convening authority taking action. On appeal, Feeney-Clark argued that he was owed sentencing credit for the post-trial delay. Although the delay was unreasonable as it exceeded 120 days and the government provided no explanation for the delay, the Appellant had previously been granted sentencing credit that exceeded his sentence. The Court declined to provide the Appellant with a remedy and affirmed his conviction.
Background

Joseph Feeney-Clark was charged with desertion, with the intent to remain away, in violation of Article 85 of the UCMJ. However, the court-martial panel found him guilty of absence of leave, in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ, and sentenced him to 107 days confinement and a bad conduct-charge. The panel also granted him 266 days of sentencing credit for his unlawful pretrial detainment.
 
After the trial completed, the government did not promptly authenticate the record and provide the defendant with a trial transcript: 208 days passed before the trial transcript and record were authenticated and signed, 65 days passed for the appellant was served with the trial record and 34 days passed before the Appellate Court received the trial record. In total, over 300 days elapsed between defendant’s sentencing and the convening authority taking action.
 
On appeal, Feeney-Clark asked that his sentence be reduced for post-trial delay.
 
Excessive Post-Trial Delay
 
In examining whether there’s unreasonable post-trial delay, the Court looks at the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, when the appellant objected to the delay, and whether the delay resulted in prejudice.
 
The Court found that there was no explanation for the delay, thus the first two factors of the test weighed in favor of the Appellant. However, the Court found that the Appellant did not object to the delay until his appeal was heard and the Appellant did not allege that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay, thus the last two factors weighed more in favor of the government. Overall, the Court found that the delay was unreasonable as it exceeded the 120 day processing time.
 
Although the Court found that ordinarily an appropriate remedy for a post-trial processing delay would be a sentencing credit, the Appellant had already received a 266 day sentencing credit for a 107 day sentence. The Court could not provide sentencing credit, as the Appellant’s sentencing credit exceeded his sentence. Despite this, the Court refused to consider dropping the Appellant’s bad conduct discharge.
 
Charging Language
 
Although the Appellant had been charged with desertion, the court martial had not amended the language of his bad conduct discharge to reflect the fact that the Appellant was convicted of the lesser offense of absence without leave. The  Court agreed to except ‘with the intent to remain away therefrom permanently’ from the Appellant’s discharge to better reflect his absence without leave conviction.
 
Conclusion
​

The Appellant’s charge of absence of leave and finding of guilty was affirmed, however the Court amended the language of his discharge to better reflect the elements of his conviction. Although the Appellant had experienced unreasonable post-trial delay, the Court refused to provide a remedy as his sentencing credit exceeded his sentence.

Jonathan Goldhirsch

Poster
8/13/2020 05:56:25 pm

Well of course a post trial delay wouldn't matter to Aldykiewicz. A mere 180 days, phht.
He's been on the court for almost a decade.

Scott
8/13/2020 07:37:18 pm

One of the (several) things he received Article 13 credit for was publication of his mug shot on county law enforcement websites “in blatant violation of Army Regulations.”

I’ll have to look that up. Have not seen that issue before. Does anyone know off hand the regulatory prohibition referred to?

Nathan Freeburg
8/13/2020 09:20:00 pm

AR 190-47


Comments are closed.
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Links
    CAAF
    -Daily Journal
    -Current Term Opinions
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    Joint R. App. Pro.
    Global MJ Reform
    LOC Mil. Law
    Army Lawyer
    Resources

    Categories

    All
    Daily Journal
    MJ Reform
    Question Time
    Scholarship
    Top Of The Year 2021
    Unanimous
    Week In Review

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020

The views expressed on this website are expressed in the authors' personal capacities.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home