Court Opinion

ID: 9486066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:37:09.904368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:30.912472
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I see the en bane issue in this case as whether the sentencing court can refuse to give full faith and credit to the final judgment of state courts where the sentencing guidelines require the federal courts to take prior convictions into account.
I agree with Judge Ryan that the Guidelines do not and did not confer discretion on federal district courts to find during sentencing hearings that prior state sentences were constitutionally invalid and therefore not to be taken into account when sentencing. I also agree that the Full Faith and Credit statute as well as comity and principles of federalism require that presumptively valid *1064state court convictions should not be tested in sentencing proceedings where there is a state court post-conviction remedy available. Principles of comity and federalism require the exhaustion of state court remedies where a person is incarcerated under a state sentence before a federal court will pass on the constitutional validity of the state conviction, and I see no valid reason to apply a more lenient rule where the state conviction is used to enhance a sentence.
My disagreement with Judge Ryan arises in those cases where no remedy is available in the state courts and where, because a defendant has already served the entire state sentence, there is no federal habeas corpus remedy.1 See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). I read United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591-92, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), and Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), to hold that one has a constitutional right not to have a sentence enhanced by reason of an unconstitutional prior conviction. If one has such a constitutional right, there must be some forum where it can be enforced. In the absence of a state forum, a federal forum must be made available. Although a proceeding separate from the sentencing, a proceeding in which the state would be a party, might be an alternative to holding the constitutional inquiry, resolution of the issue by the sentencing judge at the time of federal sentencing appears to be the most expeditious and reasonable forum. The interest of the state in a conviction in which the sentence has been served is slight at federal sentencing. That interest can be served by notice to the state attorney general. Such a procedure would be analogous to that provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2403, which requires notice to the state attorney general when the constitutionality of a state statute is drawn into question and the state is not a party.
In the instant case, McGlocklin had no state post conviction remedy since he failed to attack his state sentences within three years, as required by Tennessee law. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990). On the other hand, he was not barred from pursuing federal habeas corpus since he was still in custody.2 However, since we have the record before us with respect to defendant’s guilty pleas and the original panel as well as a majority of the court have found that they were valid, comity and federalism issues are best served here by directing the District Court to sentence defendant taking these convictions into account and binding defendant by our adjudication of the constitutionality of the questioned convictions.

. Congress recognized the need to permit federal habeas in the "absence of available corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the right of the prisoner.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

. It appears that McGlocklin was on parole for both state convictions at the time of federal sentencing. Parole satisfies the "in custody” requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963).