High Court Curbs Challenges by Repeat Offenders

Article Tools Print This Page | Comments(0) | Suggest a Story

By Reuters

Published: 04/27/2001

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that repeat offenders generally may not challenge the constitutionality of past state convictions used to add more time to their federal sentence.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court said so-called 'career criminals' in most instances may not challenge the increased sentence under federal law on the grounds that past state convictions had been unconstitutionally obtained.
In a related ruling, the court said a state prison inmate may not use the federal habeas corpus law to challenge an enhanced sentence based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the criminal no longer was in custody.
The justices reversed a U.S. appeals court ruling that granted a writ of habeas corpus to a Pennsylvania inmate whose sentence had been increased by an earlier conviction that he said had been tainted by his lawyer's faulty performance.
In the other case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said for the majority that as a general rule such challenges would not be allowed, except in 'rare circumstances.' She said she did not want to sanction 'an end run around statutes of limitation.'
She said a defendant convicted in state court has numerous opportunities to challenge the constitutionality of that conviction, but those vehicles for review were not available indefinitely and without limitation.
O'Connor said a federal court involved in the sentencing would unlikely have the necessary documents to evaluate claims arising from long-past proceedings in different, state court jurisdictions.
The only challenge allowed under the federal law involved claims that the conviction had been obtained in violation of the right to counsel and the claim had been raised at -- not after -- the sentencing, she said.
The ruling represented a defeat for Earthy Daniels, who was convicted in 1994 by a federal jury in California of illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
His conviction occurred under a federal law that requires a 15-year mandatory minimum term for anyone with three prior convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense. Daniels previously had been convicted twice for burglary and twice for robbery.
Daniels challenged his sentence, attacking the constitutionality of two of his earlier convictions.
He alleged the first robbery conviction, dating back to 1978, was unconstitutionally obtained because his guilty plea had not been voluntary.
Daniels claimed his second robbery conviction, from 1981, was invalid because his guilty plea had not been voluntary and because of ineffective assistance by his lawyer.
O'Connor said Daniels failed to pursue remedies that were available to him to challenge the past convictions while he was in custody for those crimes.
The court's four most liberal members -- Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- dissented. 'Today's decision is devoid of support in either statutory language or congressional intention,' Souter said.

Comments:

No comments have been posted for this article.

Login to let us know what you think

MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search