United States v. Riley
2013 CAAF LEXIS 388
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Private Riley kidnapped a newborn at Fort Hood in 2009 after posing as a nurse.
- Riley pled guilty under a pretrial agreement capping confinement at 11 years.
- Riley was required to register as a sex offender due to kidnapping a minor; she learned of this after trial.
- Defense counsel had not been trained to or did not inform Riley about sex offender registration consequences.
- Military judge did not address sex offender registration during providence inquiry, nor did benchbook guidance require explicit inquiry by the judge.
- CCA affirmed findings and sentence; this court granted review to consider providence of the plea and effectiveness of defense counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sex offender registration is a major consequence that must be addressed in plea proceedings | Riley argues registration is a major consequence that undermines knowability of the plea | Government contends plea colloquy need not cover collateral consequences; defense counsel handles this | Abuse of discretion; sex offender consequences must be acknowledged in the plea process |
| Whether the military judge abused discretion by not asking defense counsel about advising on sex offender registration | Riley contends benchbook guidance required inquiry; failure taints providence | Government says benchbook inquiry is non-mandatory | Yes; military judge failed to adhere to guidance, rendering plea providence questionable |
| Whether the benchbook guidance and Miller/Padilla line require the judge to ensure knowledge of sex offender consequences | Riley relies on Miller and Padilla to show duty of inquiry | Government argues primary burden remains with defense counsel | Yes; the judge bears ultimate responsibility to ensure a knowing and voluntary plea |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F.2006) (sex offender processing information crucial to knowing plea)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (deportation/collateral consequences closely tied to criminal process; impacts plea knowingness)
- United States v. Rose, 71 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F.2012) (failure to respond to a client's request about sex offender consequences constitutes deficient performance)
- United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F.2008) (guilty plea review standard; abuse of discretion standard applied to plea)
- United States v. Soto, 69 M.J. 304 (C.A.A.F.2011) (military judge's duty to ensure knowing plea; higher standard in plea inquiries)
- United States v. Hayes, 70 M.J. 454 (C.A.A.F.2012) (gives guidance on Article 45(a) inquiry and knowing pleas)
- United States v. King, 3 M.J. 458 (C.M.A.1977) (primary responsibility of military judge to ensure knowing, voluntary plea)
- Perron, 58 M.J. 78 (C.A.A.F.2003) (military judge’s duty to ensure understanding of plea)