<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[miller - Philip D. Cave]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/miller/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/miller/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:45:09 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Collateral effects]]></title>
                <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/collateral-effects-4/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.court-martial.com/blog/collateral-effects-4/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:59:59 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Collateral Consequences]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[adam walsh act]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[iac]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[miller]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Sex Offender Registration]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[sor]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>On 20 March 2012, NMCCA decided United States v. Jones; and in doing so they have answered a question that was not unexpected, but took a little while to come. In United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006), CAAF decided prospectively that defense counsel must advise a client about the DoD sexual offender&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p>On 20 March 2012, NMCCA decided <em><a href="https://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2012/JONES-201100592-PCE.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">United States v. Jones</a></em>; and in doing so they have answered a question that was not unexpected, but took a little while to come.</p>


<p>In <em><a href="https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2006Term/04-0799.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">United States v. Miller</a></em>, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006), CAAF decided prospectively that defense counsel must advise a client about the DoD sexual offender registration requirements when negotiating a PTA.</p>


<p>The question is how detailed must the advice be and what about additional state law requirements.  There any number of offenses not listed in the current version of DODI 1325.7 where states now require registration.</p>


<p>In Jones the defense counsel submitted an affidavit admitting less than detailed advice on Alabama registration requirements.  There was plenty of advice about SOR all over the record.  But, </p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
However, the appellant did not have an in depth understanding, specific to Alabama law, which begets additional analysis to ensure the providency of the plea.  See generally United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008).  

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>NMCCA at least for the moment will not extend Miller to require specific detailed advice about a particular state SOR law.</p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
The record reveals that the appellant was properly advised per Miller.  When he made more specific inquiries regarding his intended future state of residence, he was advised to consult local counsel.  This point was captured in his pretrial agreement and twice discussed at his court-martial, where the  appellant proceeded with his plea and expressed satisfaction with counsel and their advice.

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>Keep in mind that if you decide to advise about Alabama, or any other state, it better be right. </p>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[ACCA and LIO’s]]></title>
                <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/acca-and-lios/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.court-martial.com/blog/acca-and-lios/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:39:21 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[article 134]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[jones]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[lio]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[miller]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[rape]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>United States v. Moore, decided 28 October 2010. Appellant alleges, inter alia, that assault with intent to commit rape is not a lesser-included offense of rape under United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010) and that his conviction should be set aside. We agree, and provide relief in our decretal paragraph. Because we&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p><em>United States v. Moore</em>, decided 28 October 2010.</p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
Appellant alleges, inter alia, that assault with intent to commit rape is not a lesser-included offense of rape under United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010) and that his conviction should be set aside.  We agree, and provide relief in our decretal paragraph.  Because we decide the case on the basis of this assignment of error, we do not consider appellant’s other allegations. 

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>Also a quick note about “notice.” </p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) elaborated on this concept in United States v. Miller, 67 M.J. 385, 388 (C.A.A.F. 2009) in stating that an accused should not have to look further than his charge sheet to know what he is expected to defend against.  “[T]he principle of fair notice mandates that an accused has a right to know to what offense and under what legal theory he will be convicted and that a lesser included offense meets this notice requirement if it is a subset of the greater offense alleged.”  Id. at 389 (quotations and citations omitted). 

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>NMCCA has just reminded us of the current law, unaltered by <em>Miller</em> or <em><a href="https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2009SepTerm/09-0271.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jones</a></em> in <em>United States v. Fosler</em>, when dealing with Article 134, UCMJ, charging.</p>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Up periscope – 190110]]></title>
                <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/up-periscope-190110/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.court-martial.com/blog/up-periscope-190110/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:36:31 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Up Periscope]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[court-martial]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[cp]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[galesburg]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[general order #1]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[miller]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[UCMJ]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>Army authorities are now claiming that Galesburg soldier Spc. Billy Miller had [AP] on his computer as well as alleged [CP] . Miller’s tour in Afghanistan has been involuntarily extended by the army while it investigates charges of possession of [CP] and failing to obey a general order. . . . But now military officials&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
Army authorities are now claiming that Galesburg soldier Spc. Billy Miller had [AP] on his computer as well as alleged [CP] .  Miller’s tour in Afghanistan has been involuntarily extended by the army while it investigates charges of possession of [CP] and failing to obey a general order. . . . But now military officials say the failing to obey a general order charge relates to pornography involving adults found on the Illinois National Guard soldier’s computer. Soldiers are not allowed to possess pornography in Afghanistan[.]

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>Galesburg.com reports.</p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
A child pornography charge and a related count filed against an Illinois Army National Guard soldier in Afghanistan do not stem from family photos of a young relative, a U.S. Army spokesman told The Associated Press on Tuesday. . . . “In this case however, it was important to set the record straight with regards to the photos of the (relative) being portrayed as evidence leading to [CP] charges in this case. They are not,” Clementson wrote. 

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>Washington Post reports.</p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
Court martial proceedings are beginning Tuesday at Fort Lewis for a soldier blamed for the drug overdose death of a 16-year-old girl in barracks at the Army base.

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>Seattle Times reports.</p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
The court martial of Pvt. Timothy E. Bennitt began this morning with a twist, as the Fort Lewis soldier pleaded guilty to drug charges but not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the death of a Lakewood teenager. . . . After some disagreement from prosecutors over the language of Bennitt’s plea, the court recessed to allow defense attorneys to refine and formalize their client’s plea.

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>The News Tribune reports.</p>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Galesburg CP case]]></title>
                <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/galesburg-cp-case/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.court-martial.com/blog/galesburg-cp-case/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:20:53 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[court-martial]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[galesburg]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[laptop]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[miller]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[ucm]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>Here is a little more information about the NG soldier held in Afghanistan pending court-martial for alleged CP sent to him by his mother. The family of an Illinois National Guard soldier believes he was wrongly accused of possessing child pornography by a friend he had recently argued with. Rodney and Terri Miller told the&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p>Here is a little more information about the NG soldier held in Afghanistan pending court-martial for alleged CP sent to him by his mother.</p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
The family of an Illinois National Guard soldier believes he was wrongly accused of possessing child pornography by a friend he had recently argued with.

 
Rodney and Terri Miller told the Galesburg Register-Mail that their son, Specialist Billy Miller, had a falling out with a friend Afghanistan, and the friend subsequently reported seeing inappropriate pictures on Billy Miller’s laptop.

 </p>
</blockquote>


<p>Chicago Press Release Services reports.</p>


<p>Test:  Does this link to the same url load quicker.  I’m experimenting with TinyURL for all links.</p>


<p>here</p>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>