The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, January 8, 2001
Decision: Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Issues: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Miscellaneous

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)
G. Michael Tanaka (Los Angeles, California, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In 1994, Earthy D. Daniels, Jr., was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), which imposes a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence on anyone convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and who has three previous convictions for a violent felony, Daniels' sentence was enhanced. After an unsuccessful appeal, Daniels filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. Daniels argued that his sentence violated the Constitution because it was based in part on two prior convictions that were themselves unconstitutional. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

May a federal defendant, who has been sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, challenge his federal sentence through a motion on the ground that his prior convictions were unconstitutionally obtained?

Conclusion

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the nonexistent or unsuccessful pursuit of available challenges to the constitutionality of prior state convictions, which were used to enhance a federal sentence, precluded such challenge to collaterally attack a federal sentence. "[Daniels] could have pursued his claims while he was in custody on those convictions," wrote Justice O'Connor for the majority. "As his counsel conceded at oral argument, there is no indication that [Daniels] did so or that he was prevented from doing so by some external force."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Wrote a dissent
Breyer
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_9136/>
(last visited ).