Go to:	Argument - Part I	Case Menu	Briefs Menu

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF)⁽¹⁾ is a non-profit California corporation organized to participate in litigation relating to the criminal justice system as it affects the public interest. CJLF seeks to bring the constitutional protections of the accused into balance with the rights of the victim and of society to rapid, efficient, and reliable determination of guilt and swift execution of punishment.

In the present case, defendant seeks to escape the sentencing effect of multiple prior convictions based on a claim he could have brought long ago and which cast little, if any, doubt on his actual guilt of the priors. Such evasion of habitual criminal sentencing is contrary to the interests CJLF was formed to protect.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CASE

Defendant Earthy Daniels was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. See Brief for Petitioner 1-2. The sentencing court found he had four prior convictions for violent felonies: first-degree burglary in California in 1977 and 1979⁽²⁾ and robbery in 1978 and 1981. J. A. 14. The court found that an allegation of a prior juvenile adjudication for burglary was not sustained. J. A. 14-15. Application of the Armed Career Criminal Guideline made the adjusted offense level 31 instead of 22, for a guideline range of 188-235 months instead of 84-105 months. J. A. 12, 15. The actual sentence, with a further departure for time in state custody, was 176 months, i.e., 14 years, 8 months. J. A. 18.

The sentencing court declined to consider any challenges to the priors, citing Custis v. United States, 511 U. S. 485 (1994). J. A. 13. Following affirmance on appeal, see United States v. Daniels, 86 F. 3d 1164 (CA9 1996) (Table), Daniels filed a motion under 28 U. S. C. §2255 attacking the priors. J. A. 20-57. The District Court found that the attack on the priors was precluded by the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Custis in Clawson v. United States, 52 F. 3d 806 (CA9 1995) and Contreras v. Schiltgen, 151 F. 3d 906 (CA9 1998). J. A. 64-65. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the same basis. United States v. Daniels, 195 F. 3d 501, 503 (CA9 1999).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Enhanced sentencing for habitual criminals is an important component of society's effort to protect innocent people. Priors should not be disregarded for sentencing on any ground that does not gravely undermine our confidence in actual guilt of the prior offense.

The grounds for attacking a judgment are not fixed, but rather diminish at each stage of proceedings. The impact of a particular claimed error on reliability of the result is a major factor in deciding how long to allow the claims. Custis v. United States considered and rejected the argument that collateral attacks on priors must be allowed for constitutional claims other than Gideon error. Claims such as those in the present case cast little doubt on guilt of the priors, and neither law nor justice requires that they be entertained.

	Beginning of this file	Argument - Part I	Case Menu

1. This brief was written entirely by counsel for amicus, as listed on the cover, and not by counsel for any party. No outside contributions were made to the preparation or submission of this brief.

Both parties have given written consent to the filing of this brief.

2. At the times of these offenses, first degree was burglary of a dwelling at night. See Cal. Stat. 1976, ch. 1139, §206.5; Cal. Stat. 1978, ch. 579, §23. The nighttime requirement has since been repealed. Cal. Stat. 1982, ch. 1290, §1.