Oyler v. Boles - 368 U.S. 448, 82 S. Ct. 501 (1962)

Rule:

Even though a habitual criminal charge does not state a separate offense, the determination of whether one is a habitual criminal is essentially independent of the determination of guilt on the underlying substantive offense. Thus, although the habitual criminal issue may be combined with the trial of the felony charge, it is a distinct issue, and it may appropriately be the subject of separate determination. If West Virginia chooses to handle the matter as two separate proceedings, due process does not require advance notice that the trial on the substantive offense will be followed by an habitual criminal proceeding.

Facts:

The petitioners in these consolidated cases are serving life sentences imposed under West Virginia's habitual criminal statute. This Act provided for a mandatory life sentence upon the third conviction of a crime punishable by confinement in a penitentiary. William Oyler, the petitioner in No. 56, was convicted of murder in the second degree which offense carried a penalty of from 5 to 18 years' imprisonment. Sentence was deferred, and his motion for a new trial was overruled. On that same day, the Prosecuting Attorney requested and was granted leave to file an information in writing alleging that petitioner was the same person who had suffered three prior convictions in Pennsylvania which were punishable by confinement in a penitentiary. The court determined that the defendant had thrice been convicted of crimes punishable by confinement in a penitentiary and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In so doing, the court indicated that the life sentence was mandatory under the statute and recommended that petitioner be paroled as soon as he was eligible. He then filed a habeas corpus application in the Supreme Court of Appeals alleging a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment in that he had not been given advance notice of his prosecution as a recidivist which prevented him from showing the inapplicability of the habitual criminal law. In their petitions for certiorari review, the prisoners claimed the habitual criminal statute, W. Va. Code § 6130 (1961), was applied without advance notice and to a minority of those subject to its provisions in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. But this was denied, petitioner then sought review. 

Issue:

Was there a violation of due process?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari however, after reviewing the records, the court concluded that no due process violation occurred. The Court noted that petitioners, who were represented by counsel, neither raised any defenses to the habitual offender charges nor requested a continuance to investigate defenses. Moreover, records showed that petitioners conceded the applicability of the sanctions to the circumstances of their cases. The court held that although West Virginia chose to handle the habitual offender issue as a separate proceeding, due process did not require advance notice that a habitual criminal proceeding would follow the trial on the substantive offense. In this case, petitioners did not show an equal protection violation where alleged selectivity in enforcement was not claimed to be deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard. The Court affirmed the judgments.