Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Robert M. Russel (Denver, Colorado, on behalf of Colorado, et al., as amici curiae, supporting the petitioners)
William P. O'Malley (Scranton, Pennsylvania, argued the cause for the petitioners)
James V. Wade (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, argued the cause for the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
99-1884
Petitioner: 
Lackawanna County District Attorney
Respondent: 
Coss
Opinion: 
532 U.S. 394 (2001)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss , 532 U.S. 394 (2001)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_1884)
Facts of the Case: 

In 1986, after being convicted for simple assault, institutional vandalism, and criminal mischief, Edward R. Coss, Jr., filed a petition for relief, but the Pennsylvania courts never ruled on the petition. In 1990, after he had served the full sentences for his 1986 convictions, Coss was convicted of aggravated assault. Ultimately, the sentencing court did not consider Coss' 1986 convictions in determining his eligible sentencing range. In choosing a sentence within the applicable range, the court considered several factors including Coss' extensive criminal record, making reference to his 1986 convictions. Coss then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his 1986 convictions were constitutionally invalid. The Federal District Court denied the petition reasoning that Coss had not been prejudiced by his 1986 counsel's ineffectiveness. The Court of Appeals found that Coss would not have been convicted in 1986 but for the ineffective assistance. The court remanded the case ordering a retrial or resentencing without consideration of the 1986 conviction.

Question: 

May a state prisoner use a federal habeas petition to challenge a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an unconstitutional prior conviction for which the sentence has fully expired?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that "once 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 [federal habeas petition] on the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained." Justice David H. Souter filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen G. Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Lackawanna County District Attorney, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Breyer
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor