Opinion ID: 689641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior Convictions Challenge

Text: 8 Pulliam argued his three prior convictions should not have been considered for purposes of enhancing his sentence under the ACCA because he was not advised of and did not knowingly waive the three Boykin rights. In Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), the Supreme Court established the standards for determining the validity of guilty pleas. The Boykin Court held the record must show the defendant knowingly and willingly waived his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment, his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers when he accepted the plea. Id. at 242-43. 9 The Supreme Court, however, has narrowed the circumstances under which a court may review the validity of guilty pleas in prior convictions. The issue of whether a defendant may challenge a prior conviction used to enhance his sentence under the ACCA is directly addressed in Custis v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1732 (1994). In Custis, the Supreme Court stated 10 We granted certiorari to determine whether a defendant in a federal sentencing proceeding may collaterally attack the validity of previous state convictions that are used to enhance his sentence under the ACCA. We hold that a defendant has no such right (with the sole exception of convictions obtained in violation of the right to counsel) to collaterally attack prior convictions. 11 Id. at 1734. Although Pulliam urges this court to follow Justice Souter's dissent, this court is bound to follow the holding of the majority of the Supreme Court. Under Custis, Pulliam has no right to challenge prior convictions during a federal sentencing hearing except where the right to counsel has been denied. The district court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing on Pulliam's challenges to his prior conviction or in sentencing Pulliam as an armed career criminal. 12