Opinion ID: 1420443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prior Uncounseled Convictions Used for Enhancement

Text: Wickenhauser next alleges that the trial court erred in considering his prior uncounseled convictions for the purpose of enhancing his sentence. Prior to the offense at issue, Wickenhauser pled guilty to three DUI offenses without the aid of counsel. Citing Baldasar v. Illinois , 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed. (2d) 169 (1980), Wickenhauser argues that these convictions should not have been considered. We disagree. We note that the Baldasar court did not arrive at a final resolution of this issue. However, this Court held in a recent case that an uncounseled conviction constitutionally valid under Scott is valid for all purposes and, therefore, may be used to increase the term of imprisonment for a subsequent offense under an enhanced penalty statute. State v. Chance , 304 S.C. 406, 405 S.E. (2d) 375 (1991) cert. denied ___ U.S., 112 S.Ct. 1241, 117 L.Ed. (2d) 474 (1992) (citing Scott v. Illinois , 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed. (2d) 383 (1979)). Wickenhauser's 1985 conviction resulted in a one-year sentence which was suspended upon service of probation. However, Wickenhauser was not incarcerated under this sentence. As we held in Chance , when a defendant is not actually incarcerated on a prior uncounseled conviction, that offense may be used for enhancement. Id . at 408, 405 S.E. (2d) at 376. Accord, United States v. Nash , 703 F. Supp. 507 (W.D. La.) aff'd , 886 F. (2d) 1312 (5th Cir.1989) (suspended sentence does not violate Scott ). Therefore, we conclude that Wickenhauser's prior uncounseled DUI convictions were appropriately considered in determining his enhanced punishment for this subsequent conviction.