Whether, in evaluating a claim for a pre-docketing due process violation, a court can effectively require an appellant to assert the right to speedy appellate review prior to the docketing of his case on appeal and find no prejudice if an appellant requested and received a post-docketing delay

Senior Airman (SrA) Jaden T. Floyd pleaded guilty to and was convicted of one charge and specification of larceny of military property. The trial lasted one day. SrA Floyd was sentenced the day of his conviction, December 18, 2023. The sentence included a punitive separation, triggering automatic review by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (Air Force Court). Despite the short nature of the proceedings and knowing the case had to be forwarded to the Air Force Court for review, the Government created a presumptively unreasonable pre-docketing delay on appeal. During this period of pre-docketing delay, SrA Floyd developed neurological symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis. By the time the Government docketed his case, he was experiencing deficits in memory, had tremors in and spasticity of his upper and lower extremity muscles, and developed scanning speech with dysphonia. SrA Floyd’s ability to assist in his appeal was limited by these symptoms. SrA Floyd’s first opportunity to demand speedy appellate review with the Air Force Court was at docketing. Although he later asked for additional time post-docketing to finalize his brief to the Air Force Court, SrA Floyd did not contribute in any manner to the pre-docketing delay. The question presented is: Whether, in evaluating a claim for a pre-docketing due process violation, a court can effectively require an appellant to assert the right to speedy appellate review prior to the docketing of his case on appeal and find no prejudice if an appellant requested and received a post-docketing delay.