Court Opinion

ID: 9486579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:53:23.462923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:48.694273
License: Public Domain

LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I believe that the court has correctly applied the fractured Supreme Court opinions in Baldasar v. Illinois to the issues raised in this case, and therefore I concur.
However, if one looks at the constitutional issue outside the four corners of Baldasar, as Judge Morris Arnold does near the end of his dissent, then I think the issue becomes the extent to which the Sixth Amendment limits a legislature’s power to restrict collateral attacks on prior convictions or sentences. See generally Parke v. Raley, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 517, 522, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992); United States v. Elliott, 992 F.2d 853 (8th Cir.1993). Viewed from that perspective, I conclude that the Sentencing Commission did not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority in promulgating the background commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. Therefore, were it necessary to reach the question, I would hold that a sentencing court calculating a defendant’s criminal history score under the Guidelines is required to follow that background commentary in deciding whether to count a prior, uncounseled misdemeanor conviction.