Criminal Law Newsletter
| Publication year | 1982 |
| Pages | 1225 |
1982, May, Pg. 1225. Criminal Law Newsletter
The more likely consequences of state autonomy can be seen in Rehnquist's... refusal to set any limits on the process or substance of the criminal law administered by the states. For example, Rehnquist is not the least troubled by a Texas law that imposed a life sentence on an individual for obtaining $120.75 under false pretenses.(fn1)
The defense of the habitual criminal case always has been a challenge to the most skilled of defense counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court's announcement that there are no limits of harshness on the application or substance of habitual offender laws dramatically underlines the obstacles faced by and the responsibility imposed upon those who defend clients designated as "habitual criminals."
Absent a constitutionally imposed uniformity inimical to traditional notions of federalism, some State will always bear the distinction of treating particular offenders more severely than any other State.(fn2)
Due to the potential for prosecutorial abuse of habitual offender statutes and the severe consequences faced by those charged under such statutes, counsel must exhaust the avenues of available defense. An argument to the jury that the client is not the same person who has suffered three prior felony convictions despite the identity of name, appearance and fingerprints somehow seems to fall short of that defense responsibility.
While it generally is conceded that the actual trial of habitual criminal charges does more to build character than wonloss percentage for defense counsel, a defendant does not stand defenseless against the harshness of the habitual criminal statutes. Perhaps the most viable defense to habitual criminal charges is an offense: a challenge to the validity of the previous convictions alleged as a basis for the sought-after sentence enhancement.
It is this particular mode of defense in the habitual criminal case which is the subject of this article. What follows is in no way a treatise on how to defend or try these most difficult cases.(fn3) Rather, what is offered is a discussion of this one
The habitual criminal statutes(fn4) do not create or define a substantive offense, but instead prescribe circumstances where a person found guilty of a felony may receive a greater sentence because of prior felony convictions.(fn5) The statutes provide separate sentencing schemes for persons previously convicted of two or three prior felonies. A person convicted of any felony other than a class 5 felony(fn6) and who has suffered two felony convictions within ten years prior to the date of the commission of the present offense is subject to an enhanced sentence of from twenty-five to fifty years.(fn7) If the defendant is convicted of any felony and has suffered three prior felony convictions at any time in his past, he is subject to a mandatory life sentence.(fn8) The statutes also establish certain procedures to govern the trial of these cases.
Any conviction previously obtained in violation of any constitutional right of the accused cannot be used in a habitual criminal proceeding.(fn9) Each alleged prior conviction, therefore, must be scrutinized for constitutional defects. A defendant bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that the underlying conviction is constitutionally invalid. However, once such a showing is made, the prosecution must establish the constitutional validity of the conviction by a preponderance of the evidence.(fn10)
Prior convictions which resulted from a jury trial and which were affirmed on appeal, of course, seldom provide grounds for challenge. If any challenge exists to a conviction obtained after trial, it will be unique to the case and cannot be generalized in an article such as this...
To continue reading
Request your trial