United States v. Rose
2012 CAAF LEXIS 615
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Appellee was convicted by general court-martial of multiple offenses including indecent assault under Article 134 after pleading guilty to certain specifications.
- Appellee raised an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, alleging his lawyers failed to answer a key question about sex-offender registration.
- Defense counsel did not investigate or correctly answer whether pleading guilty would require Appellee to register as a sex offender.
- DuBay hearing found this registration question was a key concern that went unanswered and would have changed the plea advice.
- AFCCA initially voided indecent assault findings and authorized a rehearing; TJAG certified issues to this Court for review.
- Court reiterates that the 2005 offense conduct falls under Article 134, with specifications lacking a terminal element, leading to appellate challenges on plain error and prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance due to failure to answer key registration question | Rose | Rose | Yes, ineffective assistance established |
| Terminal element omission in Specification 4 under Charge V | Rose | Rose | Omission was plain error but not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (guilty-plea standard under Strickland)
- United States v. Green, 68 M.J. 360 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (bounds of deficient performance in counsel during plea)
- United States v. Tippit, 65 M.J. 69 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (prejudice in guilty-plea ineffective-assistance analysis)
- United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (plain-error standard for missing terminal element with prejudice focus)
- United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (review of terminal-element issues in Article 134 cases)
- United States v. St. Blanc, 70 M.J. 424 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (counsel-ineffectiveness standards in military plea context)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (necessity of effective counsel before pleading Guilty)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (advising on immigration consequences as part of plea)
- Grostefon v. United States, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) (post-trial procedures for ineffective assistance)