Daniels v. United States
Appearance
Daniels v. United States | |
---|---|
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
Concurrence | Scalia |
Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg |
Dissent | Breyer |
Laws applied | |
Armed Career Criminal Act |
Daniels v. United States, 531 U.S. 374 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that a defendant sentenced under that Act could not challenge previous convictions on appeal that were used to increase his new sentence.
Background and lower court proceedings
In 1994, Earthy D. Daniels, Jr., was convicted of being a felon in possession of a
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, reasoning that they could only review those prior convictions if a Gideon violation was alleged.[2] Daniels sought review
in the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Court's decision
In an opinion delivered by Justice
Justices agreed with the decision in full while Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the understanding that Daniels, under different circumstances, could receive special review of prior convictions.[4]
Dissent
Justice
David H. Souter wrote a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the majority's usage of the text of the Act in question. Justice Stephen Breyer also filed a dissent, writing that the silence of a Congressional statute
to discuss the implications of an enhanced sentence would allow for challenges to that enhanced sentence.
See also
- Criminal law
- Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss (2001)
References
External links
- Text of Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)