Court Opinion

ID: 9577652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:36:47.380279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:59.624853
License: Public Domain

Wright, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result of the majority’s opinion, which denied LeGrand’s petition to invalidate his prior convictions. I would not adhere to a decision that would permit a defendant to stall sentence enhancement proceedings by a collateral attack of the prior convictions used for sentence enhancement on the basis that such convictions were not freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. In my opinion, enhancement proceedings should continue independent of any separate proceeding that the defendant brings. The enhancement proceedings should not be placed in limbo for years, pending resolution of such a separate proceeding.
In Custis v. U.S., _U.S._, 114 S. Ct. 1732, 128 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1994), the Court 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 Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1994). The Court held that the defendant had no such right to collaterally attack prior convictions, except convictions obtained in violation of the right to counsel. On the basis of Custis, I would not permit a defendant to collaterally attack prior convictions in order to stall an enhancement proceeding.