01-3255 Martin v. Deuth

Listen to this article

“As the Supreme Court held in Coss: ‘[O]nce a state conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available (or because the defendant did so unsuccessfully), the conviction may be regarded as conclusively valid. If that conviction is later used to enhance a criminal sentence, the defendant generally may not challenge the enhanced sentence through a petition under sec. 2254 on the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained.’ Coss, 432 U.S. at 403-04 (internal citation omitted). As in Coss, Mr. Martin is challenging his current sentence on the ground that a prior conviction was unconstitutional. The Court recognized an exception in Coss for habeas petitions that challenge an enhanced sentence ‘on the basis that the prior conviction used to enhance the sentence was obtained where there was a failure to appoint counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, as set forth in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).’ Coss, 432 U.S. at 404. Mr. Martin has made no such claim here, however. Therefore, because, absent such an allegation, the relief he seeks is unavailable under Coss, we must affirm the judgment of the district court… Because Mr. Martin cannot collaterally attack his first conviction in its own right, he cannot challenge his subsequent sentences as enhanced by the first.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Sharp, J., Ripple, J.