Court Opinion

ID: 9486067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:37:09.910341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:30.915079
License: Public Domain

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge,
joined by NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Stripped of its facade, this case involves nothing more than a question of fairness. The district court simply determined that two prior Tennessee convictions were defective because the record clearly indicated that McGlocklin’s guilty pleas in those cases did not comply with the requirements of the Tennessee Constitution.1 Contrary to the opinion of Judge Ryan, the district court did not deny full faith and credit to these judgments, nor did it deny the continued existence of the judgments. Rather, the court only chose not to include these judgments in calculating the sentence imposed upon McGlockin. Despite the exclusion of the two prior Tennessee convictions, the district *1065court imposed a fairly substantial sentence for the offense committed. I believe that the district court properly conducted a hearing to determine the validity of the two prior state court convictions. I also believe that the district court properly excluded the two state court convictions from consideration in sentencing McGlocklin. In my opinion, the Constitution requires a sentencing court to entertain a defendant’s objection that a conviction contained in his criminal history computation is infirm under either state law or federal law. Therefore, I must dissent from the opinion of the majority. I do not recall and have been unable to find the statement made by Judge Ryan in his dissent as to the issue presented for our review in this ease. I agree that from the beginning, the issue for our consideration is that stated by Judge Guy, which is whether, under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant may challenge the use of a prior state court conviction for enhancement purposes on the grounds that the prior conviction is invalid.
I believe that Chief Judge Breyer, of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and a former member of the United States Sentencing Commission, has correctly stated the role of the sentencing guidelines: “the Guidelines cannot dictate how courts should sentence in ... special, unusual or other-than-ordinary circumstances.” United States v. Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, 949 (1st Cir.1993). As Judge Breyer so artfully stated, our role in reviewing a sentence is to decide if the sentence is unreasonable, id, and in doing so, we “must recognize a degree of district court autonomy....” Id. at 950. With these statements in mind, I cannot join in the opinion of the majority whieh affords the district court discretion, not merely in sentencing, but in deciding whether to protect a constitutional right. While the district court has discretion to fashion an appropriate sentence, the court has a distinctly different role when constitutional rights are at stake. Federal courts have a duty to protect the rights provided by the Constitution, and I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that a district court has discretion in that respect.
According to the majority, Sentencing Guideline § 4A1.2 and its Commentary mean that the district court has discretion to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to consider a challenge to the inclusion of prior state court convictions in the criminal history category. In reaching this conclusion, the majority looks to Application Note 6 and the Background Note to section 4A1.2. The Application Note provides that “sentences resulting from a conviction that a defendant shows to have been previously ruled constitutionally invalid are not to be counted.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment, (n. 6) (1990). The Background Note states, “The Commission leaves for court determination the issue of whether a defendant may collaterally attack at sentencing a prior conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment, (backg’d) (1990). In an attempt to harmonize these portions of the commentary, the majority concludes that a district court must exclude any conviction from the criminal history score that the defendant shows to have been previously ruled invalid, but that the “district court has the discretion, but is not required, to entertain a defendant’s challenge to the constitutional validity of a prior conviction. I believe that this interpretation is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution because it condones the enhancement of a defendant’s sentence, through an increased criminal history score, based on a prior conviction which was illegally obtained. Although the sentencing guidelines have changed many aspects of our criminal justice system, they cannot have changed the requirements of the Constitution.
The Constitution prohibits the use of prior uncoúnseled convictions, obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), as a basis for sentence enhancement. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 449, 92 S.Ct. 589, 592-93, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 115-16, 88 S.Ct. 258, 262, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967). In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned that to use a conviction obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel to enhance a subsequent sentence would be to violate that constitutional right once again. Burgett, 389 U.S. at 115, 88 S.Ct. at 262. In my opinion, *1066this reasoning is not confined to convictions obtained in violation of Gideon. As the majority admits, supra at 1043, the Supreme Court has never indicated that the rule of Burgett and Tucker is limited only to such convictions. In Burgett, 389 U.S. at 115, 88 S.Ct. at 262, the court explained that if a prior conviction abridged a “specific federal right,” the prior conviction could not form the basis for an enhanced sentence. On the other hand, the court noted if a defendant attacked the inclusion of a prior conviction in sentencing as abridging only general principles of fairness, the Constitution would not warrant exclusion of the prior conviction. Id. See also Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 565, 87 S.Ct. 648, 654, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967). Following this distinction, the court held that a court may not sentence a defendant on the basis of “misinformation of a constitutional magnitude.” Tucker, 404 U.S. at 447, 92 S.Ct. at 592. To me, Burgett and Tucker make clear that a prior conviction which violated any specific right, rather than simple principles of fairness, may not form the basis for enhanced sentencing. Therefore, I believe that a defendant has a constitutional right to attack the use of a prior conviction at sentencing if the defendant alleges that a prior conviction involved a deprivation of a specific federal right. See United States v. Vea-Gonzales, 986 F.2d 321, 328-29 (9th Cir.1993). See also Commonwealth v. Gadd, 665 S.W.2d 915, 917 (Ky.1984). To permit a sentencing court to impose a sentence based on a prior conviction which violates any specific federal right would be to permit another violation of the previously abridged right. See Burgett, 389 U.S. at 115-16, 88 S.Ct. at 262.
In Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S.—, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391, 403 (1992), the Supreme Court encountered a similar problem when it examined, the constitutionality of Kentucky’s persistent felony offender sentencing system. The court noted that, in construing the recidivism statute, the Kentucky Supreme Court had read Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), as requiring courts to permit attacks on the validity of a prior conviction. Parke, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 520-21, 121 L.Ed.2d at 400 (citing Commonwealth v. Gadd, 665 S.W.2d 915, 917 (Ky.1984)). Consistent with this requirement, sentencing courts in Kentucky conducted hearings to determine the validity of a prior conviction for purposes of sentencing in each case involving a challenge to that conviction. Id. The Supreme Court declined to decide specifically whether the Constitution requires States to allow recidivist defendants to challenge prior guilty pleas because Kentucky’s system provided for and allowed such challenges. Today, the majority reads the federal sentencing guidelines as providing an avenue of attack on prior convictions only if the sentencing court exercises its discretion to entertain the defendant’s argument. The procedure approved by the court in Parke and the discretionary approach adopted by the majority differ significantly. Unlike the system approved by the court in Parke, the procedure adopted by the majority does not comport with the requirements of the Constitution because it fails to provide a consistent avenue of attack for a defendant who alleges that a prior conviction is defective.
Moreover, I see no reason to distinguish between federal rights and state rights in the context of a collateral attack on a prior conviction at sentencing. I believe that a sentencing court may not sentence a defendant based on a conviction that is invalid under either state or federal law. Burgett, 389 U.S. at 115-16, 88 S.Ct. at 262 and Tucker, 404 U.S. at 449, 92 S.Ct. at 592-93, hinge on the court’s determination that sentencing a defendant based on a prior conviction would be unconstitutional if the prior conviction was illegal. That the prior conviction is invalid under state law rather than under federal law does not change this reasoning. Many states afford a more broad spectrum of rights than the rights afforded by the federal Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn.1977); Denton v. Con-Way Southern Express, Inc., 261 Ga. 41, 402 S.E.2d 269 (1991). Thus, a substantial number of prior state convictions will be invalid under state law even though they are valid under federal law. Whether the prior conviction violated a state right or a federal right, sentencing a defendant based on that prior conviction brings the past violation to *1067the present. Therefore, the sentencing court cannot sentence a defendant based on a prior conviction if that conviction is invalid in any way.
A primary purpose of the sentencing guidelines was to achieve “reasonable uniformity in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders.” U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt.A.3, p.s. (1992). I agree with the Ninth Circuit that the discretionary approach adopted by the majority “may well promote disparate treatment of similarly situated defendants, a result at odds with the Guidelines’ central mission.” Vear-Gonzales, 986 F.2d at 327. As the Ninth Circuit explained, id,.,
The authority given to the sentencing court by a discretionary approach is nearly unlimited. While one sentencing court might find “procedural expediency” argues against consideration of a collateral attack, another might well find a similar situation sufficiently compelling to require a hearing. That cannot further the goal of uniform and predictable sentences.
To me, it is anomalous to read the sentencing guidelines in a manner which defeats their central purpose. Although the discretionary approach may enhance expediency in the sentencing process, expediency neither warrants disparate sentencing of similarly situated defendants nor justifies abridging the requirements of the Constitution. The federal courts have long heard collateral attacks on prior convictions rendered by both the federal and state courts. The habeas corpus statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255, exist to permit such attacks, despite the procedural inefficiencies that a collateral attack on a prior conviction entails. “If enforcement of constitutional rights sometimes undermines efficiency, it is the price we all pay for having a constitution.” Vea-Gonzales, 986 F.2d at 328.
In any event, holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to object to a prior conviction as invalid will not significantly undermine the efficiency of a sentencing court. As the Supreme Court noted in Parke, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 523, 121 L.Ed.2d at 404, a “presumption of regularity” attaches to final judgments, even when that judgment raises constitutional questions. See also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). In light of this presumption, the court has noted that it is not fundamentally unfair to place at least a burden of production on the defendant to show that a prior conviction is defective. Parke, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 524-25, 121 L.Ed.2d at 405. Therefore, bald assertions by a defendant that a prior conviction is invalid will not necessitate a full hearing on the issue of the prior conviction’s validity. Rather, as the majority notes, supra at 1045, the defendant must be able to designate some evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, substantiating the claim of invalidity before the sentencing court will be required to conduct a hearing on the issue. Therefore, a sentencing court will encounter little excess burdep in ensuring that a defendant’s constitutional rights remain intact.
Additionally, requiring a sentencing court to entertain challenges to a prior state conviction and to exclude those convictions which it finds defective does not implicate the Full Faith and Credit clause, U.S.Const. art. IV, § 1, or the Full Faith and Credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, nor violate principles of federalism and comity. Full Faith and Credit principles. have nothing to do with the circumstances of this case, which merely addresses whether a prior state conviction shall form the basis for federal sentencing. The Full Faith and Credit clause provides, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” U.S.Const. art. IV, § 1. The Full Faith and Credit statute, enacted to implement the Full Faith and Credit Clause, provides that the Acts of the legislature of any State and the records and judicial proceedings of any court of any State “shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State ... from which they are taken.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738. The statute provides only that judgments of one State shall have the same effect in other courts as they do by “law and usage” in the courts of the rendering State. Clearly, if a prior convic*1068tion is infirm under either state or federal law, that conviction does not possess enough force or credit to require a subsequent court to enhance a defendant’s sentence for a later offense. By their own terms, full faith and credit principles do not apply to convictions that are defective in some way. Moreover, it is widely recognized that “in a federal sentencing proceeding the state is not asserting a direct interest in the validity of its conviction .... ” United States v. Custis, 988 F.2d 1355, 1361 (4th Cir.1993). Finally, nothing in a sentencing court’s determination to exclude a prior state conviction in calculating a defendant’s sentence in any way invalidates or eradicates that previous conviction. The conviction remains on the defendant’s record, and in fact, it may prevent the defendant from exercising certain civil rights. See United States v. Tinker, 985 F.2d 241 (6th Cir.1992). Thus, the recognition that a defendant has a constitutional right to attack a prior conviction in no way implicates either the Full Faith and Credit clause or the Full Faith and Credit statute.
Nothing in section 4A1.2, the application note, or the background note supports the majority’s conclusion that a sentencing court has discretion to determine in every case whether to allow a defendant to raise a collateral challenge to a prior conviction. I believe, as the Eleventh Circuit recently held, that “[t]he Background Comment ... recognizes that — apart from the sentencing guidelines — the Constitution bars federal courts from using certain kinds of convictions at sentencing.” United States v. Roman, 989 F.2d 1117, 1119 (11th Cir.1993). See also United States v. Byrd, 995 F.2d 536, 539 (4th Cir.1993) Moreover, the majority concedes, supra at 1043, that denying the district court discretion to consider a defendant’s challenge to a prior conviction would be at odds with the holdings in Burgett and Tucker. I fail to see how the majority’s discretionary approach comports with the holdings in Burgett and Tucker any more than a complete denial of the right to attack convictions collaterally comports with those holdings. The principle of Burgett and Tucker is simple: to sentence a defendant based on a prior conviction which is invalid for some reason is itself unconstitutional. How the majority construes this principle to require anything other than a consistent avenue of attack on allegedly invalid prior convictions is beyond my understanding.

. The district court also determined that the guilty pleas were defective under federal law, relying on Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). While I would like to agree with the district court, I agree with the majority that the two Tennessee convictions did comport with the requirements of Boykin. Tennessee law, however, requires more than federal law in the taking of a guilty plea, see State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn.1977), and I agree with the district court that the convictions did not comply with the requirements of Tennessee law.