Daniels, Earthy v. U.S. (04/25/2001)

By: Medill News Service, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Can prior convictions be challenged in a federal habeas writ?

Brief

Earthy D. Daniels is a convicted felon and a repeat offender.

Over a four year period from 1978 through 1981, Daniels was convicted in California of four crimes, twice burglary and twice robbery. Daniels pleaded guilty to the two robberies.

Years later, when Daniels was arrested for possessing a firearm, the prior convictions came back to haunt him. He was charged with possession by a convicted felon, and initially tried, convicted and sentenced in state court to 16 months in prison.

Upon determining that Daniels criminal history met the definition of a career offender under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a California parole officer then referred Daniels case to federal authorities.

The ACCA allows for enhanced sentences of a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a fine not less than $25,000 for ""career criminals"" when the felon is found in possession of a gun. A felon is considered a career criminal after being convicted three times for either a violent felony, a drug offense or combination of the two crimes.

Federal authorities declined to prosecute Daniels under the ACCA initially, citing the ""Petite policy."" This policy, which resulted from Petite v. U.S. (1960), generally prohibits dual or successive prosecution, unless there is a compelling federal interest.

Following reexamination of Daniels case, federal authorities applied for a waiver to the Petite policy, charged Daniels with being a felon in possession of gun, and sought the enhanced penalties under the ACCA. Daniels four previous felony convictions in California qualified him as a career offender.

Daniels was retried, convicted and sentenced again for the gun possession, this time in federal court. And this time, he received 176 months - nearly 15 years - in prison.

On appeal, Daniels argued that his two prior burglary convictions could not be considered a violent felony under the ACCA. A unanimous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the argument and affirmed his conviction and sentence.

Daniels returned to federal district court and argued that his robbery convictions could not be used under the ACCA because he had pleaded guilty to the crimes unknowingly and without effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his motion.

On appeal again to the 9th Circuit, a unanimous panel noted that in 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that short of a total denial of counsel, a defendant may not challenge prior state convictions in sentencing proceedings where the ACCA is being used to enhance the sentence.

""The statute does not permit it. The Constitution does not require it,"" wrote Judge Ferdinand Fernandez for the panel. ""Concomitantly, ease of administration and the interest in finality argue against it.""

In so holding, the appeals court extended the reasoning from the 1994 Supreme Court opinion in Custis v. U.S. to apply not only to challenges at sentencing hearings, but also to later habeas corpus challenges.

Judge Fernandez indicated in the opinion that he believed that the court's conclusion was almost self-evident from prior case law.

""We believe that we have spoken with a good deal of clarity, but because Daniels does not find it so, perhaps others are of the same mind as he,"" wrote Fernandez. ""We hesitate to leave uncertainty hovering about an issue that is so quotidian.""

At approximately the same time as the 9th Circuit issued its unanimous opinion, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Clark interpreted the Supreme Court's Custis ruling differently, making habeas challenges to earlier convictions permissible.

Noting a conflict in the circuits, the U.S. Justice Department sought review of the Clark case, indicating in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that certiorari should be granted because it is ""important to the stability of federal sentences.""

The Court granted certiorari in Daniels on Sept. 8, 2000 and allowed him to proceed in forma pauperis.

The case is important beyond the conflict in the circuits, said Michael Tanaka who represents Daniels before the Court. ""There's a variety of three-strike type statutes that all rely on prior convictions to increase a sentence. The issue is whether those convictions have been unconstitutionally attained.""