Colin R. Covitz v. United States

In United States v. Moreno, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that military appellants are entitled to speedy post-trial processing under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 63 M.J. 129, 135 (C.A.A.F. 2006). This is distinct from a military appellant’s statutory right to speedy post-trial processing. United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 222 (C.A.A.F. 2002). Recently, Congress codified the Tardif holding in Article 66(d)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice. 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2) (permitting military courts to grant sentencing relief for excessive post-trial delay). Neither the text of this new statute, nor military precedent, requires an appellant to prove a due process violation before being entitled to relief for excessive post-trial delay. Nevertheless, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals required Petitioner to prove a due process violation to obtain relief. The question presented is: Did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err when it held there was “no basis for relief” under 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2) merely because there was not a due process violation?