United States v. Dasilva

• Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: August 28, 2020
• Docket: 201900337
• Status: Published

Opinion

Before KING, STEWART, and LAWRENCE Appellate Military Judges _________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Jonathan S. DASILVA Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 201900337

Decided: 28 August 2020

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: John P. Norman

Sentence adjudged 6 September 2019 by a special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, con- finement for seven months, and a bad-conduct discharge. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Jeremy J. Wall, JAGC, USN

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq. _________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a). _________________________ United States v. Dasilva, NMCCA No. 201900337 Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM: After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Uni- form Code of Military Justice, arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 1 The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Although not raised as an issue on appeal, we note the delay of more than 30 days between the time the Convening Authority’s Action was signed and docketing with this Court is facially unreasonable. In examining the four factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), we note that the length of the delay is only 1 day over the 30-day requirement. There are no noted reasons for the delay and Ap- pellant does not assert his right to a timely appellate resolution, or otherwise re- quest expedited review. Finally, as Appellant was sentenced to seven months con- finement from the date of judgement, 6 September 2019, there is no evidence or as- sertion of prejudice due to the delay in the post-trial processing in docketing with this Court. Accordingly, we find that while the delay was facially unreasonable, Ap- pellant suffered no prejudice. See United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 135-36 (C.A.A.F. 2006).