Court Opinion

ID: 9777847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:25:46.046991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:01.985145
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion. I feel, however, that the opinion should go further to establish procedures to deal with the complications which arise when a defendant is charged with a crime and also is charged as a persistent felony offender.
We have heretofore held that if a defendant wishes to challenge the validity of a prior conviction he must do so by timely motion before the commencement of his trial as a persistent felony offender. If, on a trial in one jurisdiction, a defendant is permitted to litigate the validity of a judgment of conviction obtained in a different jurisdiction, there is a practical problem of obtaining documents and witnesses from the jurisdiction where the conviction was originally obtained. This is often aggravated by the fact that a defendant may be charged as a persistent felony offender in several jurisdictions based upon one conviction elsewhere which, if challenged, may necessitate the appearance of witnesses from the jurisdiction in which the conviction was obtained in each of the various jurisdictions in which the defendant is later charged.
It seems to me that a judgment of conviction should not be subject to collateral attack in another jurisdiction. An attack upon the validity of a judgment should be made in the court which rendered the judgment or by appeal.
In a persistent felony offender trial, proof that the defendant has been convicted of a prior felony by a final judgment of conviction which has not been vacated or set aside should be sufficient to sustain the charge. If the defendant contends that the prior conviction is not valid, his remedy should come by means of an action, in the court in which he was convicted, to set aside the judgment.
This does not mean, however, that the persistent felony offender trial must be delayed until the issue of the validity of the prior conviction is finally determined. The trial can proceed on the basis of the presumption accorded as to the regularity of judgments. If the defendant is convicted *837as a persistent felony offender and the underlying prior conviction is ultimately set aside, the conviction as a persistent felony offender can then, upon motion, be set aside.
STEPHENSON and WHITE, JJ„ join in this concurring opinion.