Citation network
Parke Vs. Raley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 05, 1992
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 20 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Parke, Warden V. RaleySearch
-
the records contained no transcripts of the proceedings and hence did not affirmatively show, as required by Boykin v. AlabamaSearch
-
the high rate of recidivism and the diversity of approaches that States have developed for addressing it. Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
the mere unavailability of a transcript on collateral review that a defendant was not advised of his rights. Burgett v. TexasSearch
-
the allocation of the proof burden, or interpretations of analogous federal laws, see, e. g., United States v. GallmanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
d). Marshall v. LonbergerSearch
-
who was indicted under the statute, claimed that two convictions offered against him were invalid under Boykin v. AlabamaSearch
-
pleas were knowing and voluntary. The trial court held a hearing according to procedures set forth in Commonwealth v. GaddSearch
-
and Dunn v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Burgett v. TexasSearch
-
Dunn v. CommonwealthSearch
-
The District Court denied the petition for essentially the same reasons given by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Raley v. ParkeSearch
-
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, agreed with respondent, relying on its recent decision in Dunn v. SimmonsSearch
-
after respondent's persistent felony offender conviction became final, the Commonwealth did not argue that Teague v. LaneSearch
-
U. S. 288 (1989), barred its application to this case. Cf. Collins v. YoungbloodSearch
-
see also Graham v. WestSearch
-
sentencing range). States have a valid interest in deterring and segregating habitual criminals. See Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
that a charge under a recidivism statute does not state a separate offense, but goes to punishment only. See Oyler v. BolesSearch
-
Moore v. MissouriSearch
-
U. S. 673 (1895)). But see Solem v. HelmSearch
-
freedom to define the types of convictions that may be used for sentence enhancement is not unlimited. In Burgett v. TexasSearch
-
in his petition for certiorari. We ordinarily do not reach issues not raised in the petition for certiorari, see Yee v. EscondidoSearch
-
Mc- 29 Carthy v. UnitedSearch
-
that attaches to final judgments, even when the question is waiver of constitutional rights. Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Although we are perhaps most familiar with this principle in habeas corpus actions, see, e. g., Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
Johnson, supra, it has long been applied equally to other forms of collateral attack, see, e. g., Voorhees v. JacksonSearch
-
see also Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
final judgment of conviction offered for purposes of sentence enhancement was validly obtained. 31 Burgett v. TexasSearch
-
difficulties will confront any party assigned an evidentiary burden in such 32 circumstances. See Loper v. BetoSearch
-
from challenging prior convictions as erroneous, as opposed to void for lack of jurisdiction. See, e. g., Kelly v. PeopleSearch
-
accord, State v. WebbSearch
-
Some, like the Sixth Circuit, evidently place the full burden on the prosecution. 33 See, e. g., State v. EllingSearch
-
State v. HenningsSearch
-
the entire burden to the defendant once the government has established the fact of conviction. See, e. g., People v. HarrisSearch
-
the burden back to the prosecution once the defendant satisfies his burden of production. See, e. g., Watkins v. PeopleSearch
-
State v. O'NeilSearch
-
State v. TriptowSearch
-
the entire burden of proving the invalidity of a prior conviction based on a guilty plea. See, e. g., United States v. GallmanSearch
-
accord, United States v. PaleoSearch
-
United States v. DaySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial