Court Opinion

ID: 9405516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 19:01:42.524479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.595447
License: Public Domain

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
            C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
                       ________________________

                           No. ACM 40247
                       ________________________

                         UNITED STATES
                             Appellee
                                  v.
                         Douglas G. LARA
            Staff Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                       ________________________

       Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                        Decided 28 June 2023
                       ________________________

Military Judge: Matthew N. McCall.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 27 September 2021 by GCM convened at
Hurlburt Field, Florida . Sentence entered by military judge on 28 Oc-
tober 2021: Bad-conduct discharge and 12 months of confinement.
For Appellant: Major Stuart J. Anderson, USAF; Major Nicole J. Her-
bers, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Alford, USAF; Major Deepa
M. Patel, USAF; Major John P. Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Es-
quire.
Before JOHNSON, RAMÍREZ, and GRUEN, Appellate Military Judges.
Judge RAMÍREZ delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief
Judge JOHNSON and Judge GRUEN joined.
                       ________________________

   This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
   precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
                       ________________________
                     United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

RAMÍREZ, Judge:
    A military judge found Appellant guilty, in accordance with his pleas and
pursuant to a plea agreement, of one specification of attempt to view child por-
nography in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. § 880, and one specification of willful dereliction of duty for failing to
refrain from storing, processing, displaying, and transmitting pornography,
sexually explicit material, or sexually oriented material while on duty, in vio-
lation of Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 892.1
    Appellant’s plea agreement provided, among other things, that two origi-
nally charged specifications would be withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice
and there would be a minimum and a maximum sentence that could be ad-
judged.2 It also stated, among other things, that the sentence would not include
a dishonorable discharge. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-
conduct discharge and 12 months of confinement for the attempt to view child
pornography specification and 2 months for the willful dereliction of duty spec-
ification, with the terms of confinement to run concurrently. The convening
authority took no action on the findings or the sentence.
    Appellant raised four issues on appeal which we reworded as follows: (1)
whether Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding sex of-
fender registration requirements; (2) whether the military judge abused his
discretion when he accepted Appellant’s guilty plea despite the information he
received concerning sex offender registration requirements; (3) whether Appel-
lant’s guilty plea to attempted viewing of child pornography was improvident;
and (4) whether Appellant’s guilty plea to willful dereliction of duty was im-
provident.
    On 10 April 2023, we issued an unpublished opinion where we found that
Appellant’s pleas of guilty were not knowing, intelligent acts done with suffi-
cient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. We ul-
timately set aside the findings of guilty as to all charges and specifications as
well as the sentence and authorized a rehearing. United States v. Lara, No.
ACM 40247, 2023 CCA LEXIS 160, at *19 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 10 Apr. 2023)
(unpub. op.).

1All references in this opinion to the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (2019 ed.).
2 The plea agreement stated that for the attempt to view child pornography offense,
Appellant would be sentenced to a minimum of 12 months of confinement and a max-
imum of 18 months of confinement. It also stated that for the dereliction of duty of-
fense, Appellant would be sentenced to a minimum of one month of confinement and a
maximum of six months of confinement. Finally, it stated that any adjudged periods of
confinement would run concurrently.

                                         2
                      United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

     On 10 May 2023, the Government filed a motion for reconsideration. Ap-
pellant filed his opposition on 17 May 2023, and after considering the opposing
filings, we granted the motion for reconsideration.
    After reconsideration, we withdraw the prior opinion and issue this opinion
to address what the Government refers to as this court’s “misapprehension”
concerning federal sex offender requirements. We again find that Appellant’s
pleas of guilty were not knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient aware-
ness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences, and we set aside
the findings of guilty as to all charges and specifications as well as the sentence
and authorize a rehearing.

                                  I. BACKGROUND
   Appellant stipulated that between March 2019 and December 2019, on
multiple occasions, he attempted to view child pornography on his personally
owned communication systems and equipment. Appellant further stipulated
that, during the same timeframe, he was derelict in the performance of his
duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from storing, processing, displaying,
and transmitting pornography, sexually explicit material, or sexually oriented
material on government computer systems while on duty. Specifically, Appel-
lant told the military judge he was viewing adult pornography on his govern-
ment computer, at work, in an attempt to prevent his wife from catching him
viewing pornography on his home computer after she installed software on the
home computer for that purpose. According to Appellant, he would look at por-
nography at work in an effort to “get away with it.”
    Appellant was represented by two military trial defense counsel who as-
sisted Appellant in negotiating a plea agreement with the convening authority.
The plea agreement was signed by all parties on 13 September 2021. On 24
September 2021, Appellant and his trial defense counsel signed a memoran-
dum, which was prepared by both defense counsel.3 The memorandum con-
cerns sex offender registration. In relevant part, it provides:

3 During the pendency of his appeal, Appellant filed a declaration and attachments
with this court to support his allegations of ineffective assistance. In response to an
order from this court, trial defense counsel, Major CB and Captain ET, provided re-
sponsive declarations as well as attachments, including the memorandum evidencing
the advice. We considered Appellant’s declaration, the declarations of trial defense
counsel, and the attachments to resolve the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
See United States v. Jessie, 79 M.J. 437, 442 (C.A.A.F. 2020) (noting with approval that
Courts of Criminal Appeals have considered declarations “when necessary for resolv-
ing claims of ineffective assistance of trial defense counsel”).

                                           3
                     United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

       You have been charged with attempting to view child pornogra-
       phy, a violation of Article 80 of the UCMJ. [Department of De-
       fense Instruction (DODI)] 1325.7[4] requires Department of De-
       fense officials to notify state and local law enforcement agencies,
       if you are found guilty of the charged offense. Additionally, if you
       are found guilty of a lesser included offense that is listed in
       DODI 1325.7, notification will also be required. If you are con-
       victed of any offense listed in DODI 1325.7 you may be required
       to register as a sex offender in your state of residence.
The memorandum further contains an indorsement from Appellant which pro-
vides:
       I, [Appellant], have read DODI 1325.7, Appendix 4 to Enclosure
       2: Listing Offenses Requiring Sex Offender Processing. [Major
       CB] and [Captain ET] have informed me orally and in writing
       that I may be required to register as a sex offender if I am found
       guilty of any offense listed in DODI 1325.7, Appendix 4 to Enclo-
       sure 2. I fully understand if I plead guilty to, or I am found guilty
       of, any offense listed in DODI 1325.7, Department of Defense
       officials will notify state and local authorities of my conviction
       and I may be required to register as a sex offender. I fully un-
       derstand that if I am required to register as a sex offender, I
       must comply with all sex offender registration laws and I may
       be subject to criminal prosecution if I fail to comply with all sex
       offender registration laws.
Three days later, on 27 September 2021, at Appellant’s court-martial and prior
to accepting Appellant’s guilty pleas, the following exchange occurred on the
record:
       MJ [Military Judge]: So as to sex offender reporting and regis-
       tration requirements, the court’s reading of DoD Instruction[ ]
       1325.07, [A]ppendix 4 of [E]nclosure 2, this offense does not re-
       quire sex offender reporting and registration. Government, what
       is the [G]overnment’s position?
       TC [Trial Counsel]: Your Honor, that is the [G]overnment’s un-
       derstanding as well.
       MJ: And understanding that this is the federal rule, [D]efense, I
       believe that you have already discussed this with your client?

4 Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1325.07, Administration of Military Cor-
rectional Facilities and Clemency and Parole (11 Mar. 2013, incorporating Change 4,
19 Aug. 2020). DoDI 1325.07 is also sometimes listed as DoDI 1325.7.

                                        4
                     United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

       DC [Area Defense Counsel]: Yes, Your Honor, out of an abun-
       dance of caution with regard to the state rules, we did discuss
       the possibility of sex offender registration.
       MJ: Okay. But just to make sure that it is clear, although that’s
       -- it’s impossible to say what some state authority might decide,
       you agree with the court’s and the [G]overnment’s interpretation
       that this offense that [Appellant] is pleading guilty to does not
       require sex offenses [sic] registration and reporting?
       DC: That is correct, Your Honor.
       MJ: So [Appellant], at this time -- well hold on while your coun-
       sel are talking.
       CDC [Circuit Defense Counsel]: Could we have just a moment,
       Your Honor?
       MJ: Sure, let’s go ahead and we will slow things down. We are
       moving quite [along] this morning, so let’s go ahead and take a
       recess and then we will come back on the record when you’re
       ready to go forward. Court is in recess.
After a recess, the following exchange ensued:
       MJ: Please be seated. Court is called [to] order. Parties are again
       present. All right, I believe where we left off, [Appellant] take a
       moment now and consult again with your defense counsel and
       tell me whether you still want to plead guilty. So take your time
       and talk with them.
       [The accused conferred with his counsels.][5]
       MJ: Do you still want to plead guilty?
       ACC [Appellant]: Yes, Your Honor.
    Part of trial defense counsel’s declaration to this court provides more in-
sight as to what occurred during the colloquy. Major CB’s declaration states:
       When the [m]ilitary [j]udge asked Defense specifically if advise-
       ment was required . . . a strategic decision was made that alert-
       ing the [c]ourt to a loophole, would not be in [Appellant]’s best
       interest, but would in fact be the opposite. If there was a loop-
       hole, an error in DODI 1325.7, or an error in the [m]ilitary
       [j]udge’s reading of the requirements for such advisements, De-
       fense was not going, to the detriment of our client, bring that to

5This bracketed comment is contained in the certified transcript of Appellant’s court-
martial.

                                          5
                    United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

       the [c]ourt’s attention. This strategy did not change the advice
       to [Appellant], nor did it change the substance of the advice and
       the consequences of which [Appellant] was advised that he could
       face as a product of his plea of guilty.
Shortly after the colloquy above, trial counsel asked to address the issue again.
       CTC [Circuit Trial Counsel]: Your Honor, I apologize for inter-
       rupting. So just one point of clarification, earlier you had asked
       [Appellant] about reporting requirements of the DoDI?
       MJ: Yes.
       CTC: And just to make sure it is clear on the record that the
       [G]overnment’s understanding that that instruction merely in-
       dicates what sort of offenses the federal government will actively
       report to the state. Not necessarily what a particular state’s in-
       dividual reporting requirements may be. And it is our under-
       standing that the [D]efense has advised [Appellant] that even
       under the terms of the plea agreement, it is potentially possible
       that he may have to register given whatever law of the state that
       he may end up residing in.
       MJ: Sure. So did we -- so did you give that advice in writing,
       [D]efense?
       CDC: Your Honor, we did give that advice in writing. [Appellant]
       has been advised that a state may have different requirements
       than the federal and that this is based off of DoD reporting and
       federal reporting, [ ] we have advised as you have.
       MJ: Okay. Do you want to make that an Appellate Exhibit, if you
       have that advice or?
       CDC: Your Honor, our advice is tied to another legal document
       that’s attorney[-]client privileged. Unless -- I don’t think . . .
       MJ: We don’t make it -- I mean, you have put it on the record
       that you gave that advice.
       CDC: Certainly.
       MJ: And you understand that, [Appellant], that every state is
       different? When we talk about sex offender reporting and regis-
       tration requirements, we are discussing on the federal level
       what the military would put on the confinement order and would
       report. And it doesn’t meet the federal requirements when it
       comes to the military, but we can’t necessarily say what effect it
       might have in every state.

                                       6
                    United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

       ACC: Yes, Your Honor.
(Omission in original) (emphasis added).
   After Appellant’s court-martial, the staff judge advocate prepared the first
indorsement to the “[S]tatement of [T]rial [R]esults,” which states that sex of-
fender notification is not required in accordance with DoDI 1325.07.
    When Appellant was released from confinement, he received a document
entitled, “United States Probation System Offender Notice and Acknowledg-
ment of Duty to Register as a Sex Offender.” This document explains Appel-
lant’s duty to register as a sex offender, under one of three tiers, pursuant to
the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA) codified
at 34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq. The document further explains that a specific
state’s requirements may be different than that provided pursuant to 34 U.S.C.
§ 20901, et seq.
    However, Appellant claims in his declaration that “[p]rior to [his] offer to
enter into a plea agreement, [he] was advised by [his] trial defense counsel that
[he] would not have to federally register for Attempt to view Child Pornogra-
phy.” Appellant continues that he told “trial defense counsel about [his] con-
cerns about sex offender registration requirements prior to the offer to plead
guilty.” Appellant then states that “[a]t the time that [he] entered into that
agreement and when [he] was at [his] court-martial, it was [his] understanding
that [he] did not have to federally register.”
   Regarding the military judge, Appellant claims in his declaration that the
“military judge at [his] trial advised [him] on the record that this offense did
not require federal registration.”
    Appellant explains that he “understood that [his] federal conviction and
potential sex offender registration requirements imposed by various [s]tates
would impact where [he and his family] could live and what jobs [he] could do.”
Appellant claims prejudice, arguing he “did not know [he] would have to feder-
ally register, which now makes any location or job search more difficult.” Ad-
ditionally, Appellant claims that his “concern for [his] minor children and being
able to provide for them is documented in both [his] oral and written unsworn
statement, which [he] conferred on with [his] trial defense counsel.”
    Appellant concludes his declaration stating: “I would not have [pleaded]
guilty nor entered into a plea agreement if I knew I would have to federally
register for attempt to view child pornography.”

                                       7
                     United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

                                 II. DISCUSSION
A. Law
    We review a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Riley, 72 M.J. 115, 119 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (citing
United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008)). “An abuse of
discretion occurs when there is something in the record of trial, with regard to
the factual basis or the law, that would raise a substantial question regarding
the appellant’s guilty plea.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
    A guilty “plea is more than an admission of past conduct; it is [an accused]’s
consent that judgment of conviction may be entered without a trial -- a waiver
of his right to trial before a jury and judge.” Riley, 72 M.J. at 120 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Such waivers “not only must be volun-
tary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of
the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Sex offender registration requirements are some
of those relevant circumstances and likely consequences. See id. at 121 (“[W]e
hold that in the context of a guilty plea inquiry, sex offender registration con-
sequences can no longer be deemed a collateral consequence of the plea.”).
    Trial “defense counsel must inform the accused of [sex offender registra-
tion] consequences, but it is the military judge who bears the ultimate burden
of ensuring that the accused’s guilty plea is knowing and voluntary.” Id. at 122.
    There are three different, but interrelated, aspects of sex offense registra-
tion pertinent to this case: (1) the federal statute (34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq.)
(SORNA) which requires mandatory sex offender registration for those who
are convicted of offenses within the statute’s scope; (2) DoDI 1325.07 which
identifies offenses that trigger mandatory sex offender reporting; and (3) state
laws concerning registration for qualified sex offenses. See United States v.
Miller, 63 M.J. 452, 459 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Torrance, 72 M.J.
607, 611–12 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2013).
    “[T]rial defense counsel should inform an accused prior to trial as to any
charged offense listed on the DoD Instr[uction] 1325.7 [ ]: Listing Of Offenses
Requiring Sex Offender Processing.” Miller, 63 M.J. at 459 (citation omitted).
Additionally, trial “defense counsel must be aware of the federal statute that
requires mandatory reporting and registration for those who are convicted of
offenses within the statute’s scope, as well as DoDI 1325.7, which identifies
offenses that trigger mandatory sex offender reporting.” Torrance, 72 M.J. at
611–12 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted.) “Trial de-
fense counsel should also state on the record of the court-martial that counsel
has complied with this advice requirement.” Miller, 63 M.J. at 459. “While fail-
ure to so advise an accused is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel, it will

                                         8
                     United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

be one circumstance [an appellate c]ourt will carefully consider in evaluating
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. However, “[g]iven the pleth-
ora of sexual offender registration laws enacted in each state, it is not neces-
sary for trial defense counsel to become knowledgeable about the sex offender
registration statutes of every state.” Id.
    The federal statute (SORNA) directs the creation of the National Sex Of-
fender Registry. 34 U.S.C. § 20921(a). The federal statute also specifically
states that a sex offender must register in each jurisdiction where he resides,
where he is an employee, and where he is a student. 34 U.S.C. § 20913(a). This
requirement applies to military members regardless of whether their court-
martial resulted in confinement or not. 34 U.S.C. § 20931(1)(A)–(B). An official
must provide the sex offender with a form that provides him with the duties
and responsibilities necessary to register pursuant to SORNA. 34 U.S.C.
§ 20919(a)(1)–(3). If serving confinement, the sex offender must register before
completing his sentence. 34 U.S.C. § 20913(b)(1). The statute defines “sex of-
fender” as “an individual who was convicted of a sex offense,” and provides
several meanings of a “sex offense,” to include “a military offense specified by
the Secretary of Defense,” 34 U.S.C. § 20911(1), (5)(A)(iv), and “a criminal of-
fense that is a specified offense against a minor,” 34 U.S.C. § 20911(5)(A)(ii).
In turn, the term “specified offense against a minor” includes possession of
child pornography or “[a]ny conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against
a minor.” 34 U.S.C. § 20911(7)(G), (I). Our superior court has recognized that
“[c]hild pornography is a continuing crime” against the depicted child. United
States v. Barker, 77 M.J. 377, 381 (C.A.A.F. 2018) (citing Paroline v. United
States, 572 U.S. 434, 440 (2014)) (additional citation omitted). Moreover, an
“attempt” to commit a sex offense as defined by the statute is itself a sex offense
for purposes of SORNA. 34 U.S.C. § 20911(5)(A)(v).
    A military judge has a duty to ensure that trial defense counsel has com-
plied with their obligation to advise an accused concerning sex offender regis-
tration requirements. Riley, 72 M.J. at 122. The Military Judges’ Benchbook
“simply instruct[s] the military judge to ensure that defense counsel [has] com-
plied” with our superior court’s requirements for advice regarding sex offender
registration requirements. Id. This is “clearly consistent with a military judge’s
responsibilities while conducting a plea inquiry.” Id. “Given the lifelong conse-
quences of sex offender registration, which is a particularly severe penalty,” a
military judge’s failure to ensure an appellant understood the sex offender reg-
istration requirements of his guilty plea may result in a substantial basis to
question the providence of an appellant’s plea. Id. (internal quotation marks
and footnote omitted).
    In order to determine whether an appellant’s plea was knowing and volun-
tary, or whether trial defense counsel were ineffective on such a matter, we
look to the record of trial. Id. at 120; see also United States v. Jessie, 79 M.J.

                                        9
                    United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

437, 442 (C.A.A.F. 2020) (noting Courts of Criminal Appeals may consider dec-
larations “when necessary for resolving claims of ineffective assistance of trial
defense counsel”). However, “[d]etermining whether a plea is voluntary is by
no means an exact science.” United States v. Perron, 58 M.J. 78, 85 (C.A.A.F.
2003).
    “The remedy for finding a plea improvident is to set aside the finding based
on the improvident plea and authorize a rehearing.” Riley, 72 M.J. at 122 (ci-
tations omitted).
B. Analysis
     As we explained above, there are three different, but interrelated, aspects
of sex offense registration pertinent to this case: the federal statute, 34 U.S.C.
§ 20901, et seq. (SORNA); DoDI 1325.07; and state laws concerning registra-
tion. See Torrance, 72 M.J. at 611–12. Appellant takes issue with the statutory
federal registration requirements. There is nothing in (1) trial defense coun-
sel’s “Offenses Requiring Sex Offender Processing Advisement,” (2) Appellant’s
indorsement, or (3) the trial transcript indicating that Appellant was ever no-
tified that he may have to register as a sex offender under 34 U.S.C. § 20901,
et seq., the federal statutory registration requirements.
    Further, during the court-martial, the military judge conducted his own
legal analysis of the sex offender registration requirement “on the federal level”
only, by way of “what the military would put on the confinement order and
would report,” because as he explained to Appellant and his trial defense coun-
sel, “every state is different.” The military judge told Appellant that Appel-
lant’s offense “doesn’t meet the federal requirements when it came to the mil-
itary,” and therefore, the Department of Defense was not required to report
Appellant’s offenses. The military judge referred to the DoDI as the “federal
rule,” but never discussed the federal statutory registration framework under
34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq.
    Trial counsel also agreed with the military judge’s interpretation and ap-
parently the staff judge advocate did as well, given his annotations in the in-
dorsement to the Statement of Trial Results. Indeed, by all indications, these
individuals were under the impression that Appellant would not be required
to register as a sex offender pursuant to the Department of Defense instruc-
tion, but were all silent as to 34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq. However, it turned out
Appellant did have a federal requirement to register, and this oversight did
not come to light until Appellant’s release from confinement.
   On appeal, Appellant’s trial defense counsel suggest they might have un-
derstood the military judge’s interpretation was incorrect, but made the “stra-

                                       10
                     United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

tegic” decision not to highlight a possible “error in the [m]ilitary [j]udge’s read-
ing of the requirements for such advisements” by bringing the matter to the
court’s attention.
    In our original opinion, we explained that the Government had not chal-
lenged Appellant’s assertions that he was required to register pursuant to the
federal statute. In its motion for reconsideration, the Government acknowl-
edged that its “original Answer focused on Appellant’s inability to prove he had
ever actually registered as a ‘federal sex offender,’ [but the] Motion for Recon-
sideration should cement the Government’s firm challenge.”
    During Appellant’s guilty plea colloquy, trial defense counsel avoided the
military judge’s question with regards to the DoD Instruction and were com-
pletely silent as to 34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq.:
       MJ: And understanding that this is the federal rule, [D]efense, I
       believe that you have already discussed this with your client?
       DC: Yes, Your Honor, out of an abundance of caution with regard
       to the state rules, we did discuss the possibility of sex offender
       registration.
    Then trial defense counsel put on the record that they agreed with the mil-
itary judge’s reading of the law:
       MJ: Okay. But just to make sure that it is clear, although that’s
       -- it’s impossible to say what some state authority might decide,
       you agree with the court’s and the [G]overnment’s interpretation
       that this offense that [Appellant] is pleading guilty to does not
       require sex offenses [sic] registration and reporting?
       DC: That is correct, Your Honor.
(Emphasis added).
    Shortly afterwards, trial defense counsel put on the record, “[W]e have ad-
vised as you have,” telling the military judge that they advised Appellant that
his plea did not require sex offender registration and reporting pursuant to the
DoDI, but were again silent as to 34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq.
   In determining whether Appellant’s plea was knowing and voluntary, we
have looked to the record of trial and the documents submitted by Appellant
and trial defense counsel. We find that Appellant’s plea may have been volun-
tary but was not a knowing, intelligent act done with sufficient awareness of
the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. See Riley, 72 M.J. at 121.
Specifically, because Appellant was not properly informed about sex offender
registration pursuant to the federal statute, 34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq., we find
that his plea of guilty was not a knowing, intelligent act done with sufficient
awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.

                                        11
                     United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

    While the Government takes issue with the distinction that the federal
statute, 34 U.S.C. § 20921, creates a national sex offender registry derived from
the various sex offender registries of lower jurisdictions, rather than creating
an independent, federal registry, this distinction is not the relevant point.
Whether Appellant had to register for a uniquely federal registry or had to
register with a state or territory pursuant to a federal statute, the bottom line
is that Appellant was never informed by trial defense counsel of the registra-
tion requirements pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq. See Torrance, 72 M.J.
at 611–12. (“[Trial] defense counsel must be aware of the federal statute that
requires mandatory reporting and registration for those who are convicted of
offenses within the statute’s scope.”). According to the federal statute, a con-
viction for an attempt to view child pornography falls within the meaning of
“sex offense” and would foreseeably have required an individual to register as
a sex offender.
    Additionally, the military judge had a duty to ensure that trial defense
counsel complied with their obligation to advise Appellant concerning sex of-
fender registration requirements. The military judge addressed the DoDI and
stated that the requirement for “every state is different,” but did not address
34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq., with Appellant. In addition, the military judge did
not ask trial defense counsel whether they advised Appellant with regards to
the requirements of 34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq. Because of the lifelong conse-
quences of sex offender registration, the military judge’s failure to ensure trial
defense counsel advised Appellant about the federal statutory sex offender reg-
istration requirements of his guilty plea raises the question as to whether a
substantial basis exists to question the providence of Appellant’s plea of guilty.
    Appellant makes clear in his declaration that he “would not have [pleaded]
guilty nor entered into a plea agreement if [he] knew [he] would have to feder-
ally register for attempt to view child pornography.” Again, we do not see this
as an issue of an independent federal registry, but the requirements of the
federal statute, which are distinct from the DoDI and any state requirement.
Nonetheless, we read Appellant’s declaration to mean he would not have en-
tered into a plea agreement as to either offense knowing the consequences of a
plea of guilty as to the one offense. We find Appellant’s assertion plausible in
light of the long-term impact of sex offender registration, and accordingly we
find a substantial basis to question the providency of his guilty pleas. See Riley,
72 M.J. at 122 (citing United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F.
2008)).
   Therefore, we set aside the findings and the sentence and authorize a re-
hearing.

                                        12
                   United States v. Lara, No. ACM 40247

                              III. CONCLUSION
    The findings of guilty as to all Charges and Specifications are SET ASIDE.
The sentence is SET ASIDE. A rehearing is authorized. The record of trial is
returned to The Judge Advocate General. Article 66(f), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.
§ 866(f). Thereafter, Article 66(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(b), will apply.

                    FOR THE COURT

                    CAROL K. JOYCE
                    Clerk of the Court

                                     13