Court Opinion

ID: 9479221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:11:54.732084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:53.644350
License: Public Domain

BAILEY BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with section II of Judge Guy’s opinion which holds that Boulder v. Commonwealth, 610 S.W.2d 615 (Ky.1980), applies to Dale’s case but disagree with sec*937tion III which holds that, nonetheless, the grant of habeas relief should be reversed because there was no denial of due process.1 Since Judge Wellford is of the view that Boulder is not applicable and that, in any event, there was no denial of due process, it appears that the grant of habeas relief must be reversed.
As I read section III of Judge Guy’s opinion, it holds that there was no denial of due process, even though it was actually necessary to overrule Boulder to approve the enhancement of Dale’s punishment, because Dale is presumed to have known that, with his criminal record, his punishment for armed robbery could be enhanced. Thus Judge Guy concludes that Dale received the “fair warning” that Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 191, 97 S.Ct. 990, 992, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977), holds due process requires.
The question is: fair warning of what? It seems to me that a correct interpretation of Marks and the other cases relied upon in Judge Guy’s opinion is that Dale was entitled to have had fair warning of the law that was applied to his case at trial. Dale did not receive this warning because such law did not exist; this law came into existence when the Supreme Court of Kentucky expressly overruled Boulder and approved the enhancement of Dale’s sentence. Judge Guy’s opinion, on the contrary, holds that Dale was entitled only to fair warning of the law that could have properly been applied had the older offenses been used to support the possession charge and the newer ones to support the persistent felony offender charge. A prio-ri, this does not make sense to me and, in my opinion, is not consistent with the cases relief upon by Judge Guy.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. As is pointed out in Judge Guy’s opinion, the issue here was mislabeled in the district court as being an ex post facto issue when in truth it is a due process issue. As also pointed out, however, we are dealing with the same body of law.