Legal Document

368 U.S. 448 82 Supreme Court Reporter 501 7 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 446 James W. OYLER, Petitioner,v.Otto C. BOLES, Warden. Paul or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 CRABTREE, Petitioner, versus Otto Nos. 56 and 57. Argued Dec. 4, 1961. Decided Feb. 19, 1962. David Ginsburg, Washington, D.C., for the petitioners. George Mitchell, Charleston, Va., respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered opinion of Court. 1 The petitioners in these consolidated cases are serving life sentences imposed under West Virginia's habitual criminal statute. This Act provides a mandatory sentence upon third conviction 'of crime punishable by confinement penitentiary.'1 increased penalty is to be invoked an information filed prosecuting attorney 'immediately before sentence.'2 Alleging that this had been applied without advance notice only minority those subject its provisions, violation respectively Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment, separate petitions writs habeas corpus Appeals Virginia. Both their were denied opinion. Unlike Chewning Cunningham, 443, 498, 442, here each was represented counsel at time he sentenced. Finding representative many recidivist have docketed past few Terms, we granted certiorari. 365 810, 81 701, 5 690. We now affirm judgment case. 2 William Oyler, petitioner Number 56, convicted murder second degree on February 5, 1953, which offense carried from 18 years' imprisonment. Sentence deferred, 11 his motion new trial overruled. On same date Prosecuting Attorney requested leave file writing alleging Oyler person who suffered three prior convictions Pennsylvania penitentiary. After being cautioned as effect such information, accompanied counsel, acknowledged open court named information. then determined defendant thrice crimes penitentiary sentenced him In so doing indicated statute recommended paroled soon eligible. 1960 application denial due process Amendment not given prosecution prevented showing inapplicability law. alleged inapplicable because never imprisonment although subjecting possibility sentence.3 He also attacked equal protection ground previously set forth. 3 1957 Crabtree, 57, pleaded guilty forging $35 check, 10 week later informed Crabtree two previous felony convictions, one State Washington judge, after cautioning rights it, inquired if fact accused person. throughout, admitted Upon admission accused's further statement nothing more say, proceeded sought relief claiming absence Walla County, information.4 Like raised ground. I. 4 Petitioners recognize constitutionality practice inflicting severer penalties offenders no longer serious challenge;5 however, they contend Virginia unconstitutional manner. It petitioners' position procedural requires accusation least afford reasonable opportunity meet charge. Even though charge does state offense, determination whether 'essentially independent' guilt underlying substantive offense. Chandler Fretag, 348 3, 8, 75 1, 99 L.Ed. (1954). Thus, issue may combined with charge, 'it distinct issue, it appropriately determination.' Graham Virginia, 224 616, 625, 32 583, 586, 917 (1912). If chooses handle matter proceedings, require will followed proceeding.6 See supra. 6 Nevertheless, must receive heard relative even Such requirements implicit within our decisions supra, -, 498; Reynolds Cochran, 525, 723, 754 (1961); Although specifically concerned right assistance would idle accomplishment say but heard. As interpreted highest court, notify presented event found guilty.7 Thus State's invocation first brought home when, sentencing, read done here. At point required plead expressly jury identity either denies just remains silent.8 8 But petitioners, neither persons nor remained silent. Nor did object seek continuance received adequate needed determine how respond respect identity. Rather, both rendered inquiry along line unnecessary acknowledgments convicted. circumstances assert fair allegations 9 They assert, other defenses charges. is, course, true proceeding, for, pointed out Hughes (later Chief Justice) when reviewed law, contemplates valid subsequently mullified. A list obvious issues include matters character contemplated procedure has invoking it. Indeed, assume any infirmities collateral attack could reached law permits9 requires. question need do decide, attempted during proceedings raise or, indeed, issues. not, therefore, so. claim deprived inadequate contest rejected cases. Each lawyer side, way defense intimated investigate existence possible defense. contrary, record clearly shows personally through lawyers conceded applicability law's sanctions II. guaranteed Amendment. petition writ stated: 'Petitioner discriminated against Habitual Criminal January, 1940, June, 1955, there six men Taylor County Circuit offenders, Petitioner man thus period. five prosecuted Criminals period, all adults, Petitioner's former result Juvenile actions. 12 '#5. selective use Statute, 904 known throughout Statutes, Chapter 61, Article 11, Sections 19 Code. (sic) denied.' 13 Statistical data based prison records appended support latter allegation. included similar statistical alleged: 14 'The said Statute administered manner therefor conflict Constitution States.' 15 contention imposes duty authorities coming statutory standards cases.10 This, argue, whom heavier enforced. note stated failure proceed three-time lack knowledge offenses part prosecutors deliberate policy proceeding certain class specific persons. statistics merely show according high percentage against. There indication compiled until penitentiary, available prosecutors.11 Hence than prosecute others offenses. deny Sanders Waters, 199 Federal Reporter, 2nd 317 (C.A. 10th Cir. 1952); Oregon Hicks. 213 Or. 619, 325 Pacific 794 (1958). 16 Moreover, conscious exercise some selectivity enforcement itself federal constitutional violation. case might imply enforcement, selection deliberately unjustifiable standard race, religion, arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds supporting finding alleged. Hicks, supra; cf. Snowden Hughes, 321 64 397, 88 497 (1944); Yick Wo Hopkins, 118 356, 1064, 30 220 (1886) (by implication). 17 points misstatement county actually served correctional rather involve questions concerned. Since handed down opinion, know what foreclosed. remain open, affect test them appropriate proceedings. Affirmed. HARLAN, concurring. 20 & N Immigration Nationality Decisions join Court's Boles Boles, concur 63, 442. 21 my view, decided hand, Chewning, other, represent opposite sides coin. interrelationship appear opinions Court, since cannot agree decision 22 statutes provide enhanced punishment multiple offenders. Apparently notice, latest charges made multiple-offense accusation. appears hears prosecutor's learns relies demand sentence. And any. present 23 For individual unrepresented surely too precipitous satisfy fairness courts Clause re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, 92 682; see Williams New York, 337 241, 245, 69 1079, 1082, 93 1337; Cole Arkansas, 196, 201, 514, 517, 644. One untutored help bewildered sudden presentation immediate response. Without suggesting particular duration afforded, still less sentencing aid multiple-offender hearings, entertain grave doubts resulted. 24 reveal hand hearing held asked plead. Counsel order look into validity charges, doubt, establish identities chose so, think choice forecloses claims prepare 25 counsel. taken warning store him, having occasions. His assignment request denied, controverted.1 26 strikes sentence, despite apparent similarity between Gryger Burke, 334 728, 1256, 1683, holds various layman. To me, bare improbable asserted amount 'exceptional circumstances' which, existing e.g., Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 1252, 86 1595, indigent noncapital can reconciled holding Gryger, proposition, able appointed contentions, much like suggested offered provided hearing. 27 What distinguish persuades me supply amounted assured want copy listing occasions half months ample engage attorney, decide himself take.2 us now, opportunity. advised courses him. With get advice, own ask legal significance. 28 DOUGLAS, Justice, BLACK, BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 29 When years ago, sustained said: 'Full accorded prisoner allegation conviction. Plainly, aside consequences removed absolute pardon. No here, unimpaired judgments, jury.' 917. 31 broader. used making necessary process. fails precise trial. make ground, should noted passing Rhea Edwards, 136 F.Supp. 671, aff'd, Cir., 238 850, Tennessee's habitual-offender violated where given, apparently Cf. Terminiello Chicago, 894, 1131. cases, nowhere suggests properly Rather argument satisfied tried restricted accused. 33 'a judicial hearing' comport 4. retain deprives satisfied, full panoply Bill Rights, far defend concerned, afforded offender effectively refuted proof charged constitutionally as, example, went appointment someone requirement Denial raisable judgments. Kaiser, 323 471, 65 363, 89 398. That permitted employed 34 mention underline gravity accusations. Unless attack1 wrong seriously compounded. 35 understand concedes much. affirms given. informations times connection most recent convictions. omission formal fatal statutes. ex rel. Collins Claudy, 204 624; Edwards Rhea, 850. process—notice enough allow defend. 9-day deemed Johnson Kansas, 284 344, 345, saying: 36 fundamental requisites process, invoked, complete hearing, competent counsel.' 37 Respondent indeed maintains necessary: 38 primary purpose affording inform give reason exist instant pertaining act.' Brief, Page 5. 39 Adequate important ordinary commensurate range complexity concededly tendered. basic. 682: 'A person's defense—a day court—are basic system jurisprudence * *.' 'one-man grand jury' witness giving false evasive testimony summarily Its principle equally applicable Until fairly tried, satisfied.2 40 adhered statutes, real W.Va.Code, 1961, § 6130. 6131. requiring imposed. Skeen, 140 W.Va. 896, 87 South Eastern 521 (1955). indicates instead Yakima Washington. criminal, term years. E.g., Moore Missouri, 159 673, 179, 301 (1895). carryover laws Va.Code, 1860, chapter 199, §§ 25—26, became organized State. basically same, save 1943 amendment indictment 1912 upheld Any rule place difficult burden imposition penalty. defendant, often come prosecutor trial, discovered reaches Blankenship, 137 398 (1952). silent foreclose raising especially clear issues, raise, inappropriate. involved statute, counterpart 6260, infra, mandatory. interpretation binding However, inquire point. prisoners confined warden discretion 6260. invoke cited reflect discretion. allege assumption met poverty standard. subsidiary access materials preparation calmly factual plan plea enter best Constitutional declared jurisdictional bar conviction' assertable Zerbst, 304 458, 468, 58 1019, 1024, 1461, 1938. contrary implications light broadening reach 1. 1912; Zerbst 1938; judgments started Chambers Florida, 309 227, 60 472, 84 716. Smith O'Grady, 312 329, 61 572, 85 859;

Classification Label: 3