Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
I'm blogging about the presentation given yesterday at the 39th (VA) Annual Criminal Law Seminar. The most important point I learned is that military justice practitioners, myself included, are not necessarily competent to advise a client properly on immigration consequences of a conviction. This of course doesn't matter too much if it's a not guilty plea case all the way. The potential consequences do become relevant in a guilty plea case. Why should military lawyers care, other than a professional need and requirement to give good advice. Two C.A.A.F cases: United States v. Miller and Denedo, and the recent AFCCA decision in United States v. Rose.
Background.
While the appellant in Miller didn't get any relief, the burden has been placed on trial defense counsel and the military judge to ensure an accused is properly informed of sex offender issues when pleading guilty. See United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006). Besides raising IAC against his appellate counsel, Miller raised a Grosty issue post-NMCCA decision that his guilty plea was involuntary for IAC, because his trial defense counsel failed to tell him about sex offender registration.