Opinion ID: 152649
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Uncounseled Conviction

Text: Wahid argues that his 1999 conviction under Cal. Veh.Code § 14601.1(a) should not have counted because he was uncounseled and sentenced to serve jail time. The PSR reflects that [a]ccording to court documentation, the defendant waived his right to counsel and pleaded nolo contendere. Wahid argues that counting this conviction was unconstitutional and contrary to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2.
Wahid contends that the conviction should not count in light of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel in criminal cases in which jail time may be imposed. See Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (U.S.1979) (holding that precedent warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel.) However, once the government establishes the fact of a conviction, the burden rests on the defendant to show that the conviction was unconstitutional. United States v. Newman, 912 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir.1990). [3] Wahid has not presented any evidence that he did not make a knowing and intentional waiver of his right to counsel or that his conviction otherwise was unconstitutional.
Wahid contends that the Commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 precludes the district court from including in its criminal history calculation any uncounseled misdemeanor sentence for which imprisonment was imposed. The relevant language reads: Prior sentences, not otherwise excluded, are to be counted in the criminal history score, including uncounseled misdemeanor sentences where imprisonment was not imposed. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. background. The Commentary is specific in saying that the criminal history calculation should include uncounseled misdemeanor convictions where imprisonment was not imposed. Wahid argues that under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ( expressio unius ), the commentators must have intended to exclude uncounseled misdemeanor convictions for which imprisonment was imposed. Wahid points out that the Commentary has been amended to exclude certain convictions even if such convictions were not obtained in violation of the Constitution. Before November 1, 1990, the Commentary provided that if to count an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction would result in the imposition of a sentence under circumstances that would violate the United States Constitution, then such conviction shall not be counted in the criminal history score. See United States v. Niven, 952 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir.1991). Wahid is correct that the amendment to the Commentary does appear to broaden the category of convictions that should not be counted in determining a criminal history score. However, taken to its logical extreme, Wahid's interpretation of the Commentary also would exclude counseled misdemeanor sentences for which imprisonment was not imposed. We decline Wahid's invitation to reach such a result.