[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-445084-105":59,"doc-detail-445084-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","supreme-court-upholds-method-of-sentencing-repeat-offenders-in-states-december-9-1992-issue","SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS METHOD OF SENTENCING REPEAT OFFENDERS IN STATES - December 9, 1992 Issue","","The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld how many states apply repeat-offender laws that impose harsher prison terms for defendants with prior convictions. In a unanimous decision, the Court held Kentucky was not required to prove—through exhaustive efforts—that unappealed prior guilty pleas were constitutional. It ruled the burden can fall on defendants to produce transcripts when collateral records are missing, especially where no government misconduct is alleged. The decision affects Rickey Harold Raley’s mandatory minimum sentence.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/supreme-court-upholds-method-of-sentencing-repeat-offenders-in-states-december-9-1992-issue/445084/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/supreme-court-upholds-method-of-sentencing-repeat-offenders-in-states-december-9-1992-issue/445084.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Ivy","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-01","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":14},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What did the U.S. Supreme Court uphold regarding repeat-offender laws?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The Court upheld the way states apply repeat-offender laws that allow stiffer prison terms based on prior convictions.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Who carries the responsibility to show that a prior conviction was constitutionally valid in the described scenario?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"In the Court’s view, the defendant is responsible to produce the court transcript when a recidivist challenges a prior conviction for the first time and when there are no apparent legal irregularities.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did the Court address incomplete or missing prior court records?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The opinion stated it is not unusual for records to be incomplete and that it generally is not the state’s responsibility to track down missing records to prove a prior conviction was proper, especially absent alleged government misconduct.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},445084,1790844816,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":14,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},549758252649,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/8000253669c5317157?_k=1778319167496531819","WoL.23 No.25  \n# SUPREME COURT UPHOLDSMETHOD OF SENTENCINGREPEAT OFFENDERS IN STATES\n\nThe U.S.Supreme Court on Dec.1 upheldthe way many states apply their repeat offenderlaws,which allow for stiffer prison terms for thosewith prior criminal convictions.  \nIn a unanimous opinion,the court saidKentucky was not required to go to great lengths toprove that prior guilty pleas of a repeat  \noffender-which were never appealed--were consti-tutional.  \nIn reversing a ruling of the 6th U.S.CircuitCourt of Appeals,the high court said theresponsibility to show that prior convictions wereflawed is on the defendant in cases where there areno apparent legal irregularities.  \nIn an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Con-nor,the court said it is not unusual for past courtrecords to be incomplete,and said it is not general-ly the responsibility of the state to track down thoserecords to show that a prior conviction was proper.  \n\"The circumstances of a missing or non-existent record is,we suspect,not atypical,particu-larly when the prior conviction is several yearsold,\"O'Connor wrote.\"On collateral review,wethink it defies logic to presume from the mereunavailability of a transcript(assuming no allega-tion that the unavailability is due to governmentalmisconduct)that the defendant was not advised ofhis rights.\"  \nThe decision means that Kentucky canimpose a mandatory minimum 10-year prisonsentence on Rickey Harold Raley for his 1987  \nDecember 9,1992  \nIN THIS ISSUE                 \nREPEAT OFFENDERS:Court  \nUpholds Sentencing Methods…  …       ………1FBOP:Mike Quinlan Resigns As Director…     …1FELONY DEFENDANTS:Most  \nReleased Before Trial……   …  ……     2  \nN.Y.:Wil Pay Nurse With HIV………    …   …4CDCP:Seeks Comments  \nOn AIDS Prevention Rules..  ……   …………4U.S.EXECUTIONS:Proposed  \nRules Require Injections……        …   …8COURT SECURITY:Bribery For Contracts Admitted..9VERMONT:Smoking Ban Causing Problem…  …10  \nFBOP'S QUINLAN RESIGNS;REPLACED BY KATHLEENHAWK  \nJ.Michael Quinlan,director of the FederalBureau of Prisons(FBOP),resigned last week dueto ill health.The announcement to the news mediawas made Nov.4by Attorney General WilliamBarr.  \nQuinlan,51,in a letter of resignation toBarr,said he was quitting because of \"continuing,although not life-threatening,health problems.\"There was no public explanation of the illness.  \nBarr said Quinlan's successor is KathleenHawk,42,assistant director for program review inthe Prisons Bureau.  \nSee FBOP DIRECTOR,page nwo)  \nconviction of second degree robbery,whenbolstered by his guilty pleas in 1979 and 1981on burglary charges.  \nRaley had never appealed those convic-tions and acknowledges he had an attorney toguide him,but now claims the 1981 plea wasnot \"knowingly and voluntarily entered.\"  \nWithout the repeat offender enhance-ment,Raley would have been sentenced to fiveyears in prison and would have been eligiblefor early parole,something not now available.  \nAll 50 states and the Federal Governmentprovide for sentencing repeat offenders moreseverely than those convicted of a crime for thefirst time.  \nWhile the justices ruled for Kentucky,they declined to go as far as the Bush Adminis-tration had asked and rule that due processnever requires state courts to allow challengesto guilty pleas used for enhancement purposes.  \nThe court held only that,in a situationwhere a recidivist challenges the validity of aprior conviction for the first time as not being.\"knowing and voluntary,\"it is his responsibilityto produce the court transcript.  \nJustice Harry Blackmun filed a separateconcurring opinion noting that if Kentucky hadused the repeat offender status as a separatecriminal offense,rather than merely a sentenceenhancement,he would have required the stateto produce the record.(91-719-Al C.Parke,warden,vs.Ricky Harold Raley.)■  \n(FBOP DIRECTOR,from page one)  \nHawk will manage 67 prisons that nowhouse more than 80,000 prisoners.Her mostpressing problem is overcrowding:despite amassive building program,Federal pri","cbCaihAXWpF2pRn6","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihAXWpF2pRn6","pdf",2996156,11,"English","# Supreme Court Decision on Repeat Offender Sentencing\n## Kentucky’s Repeat Offender Laws and Burden of Proof\n## Missing Records and Collateral Review\n# Federal Bureau of Prisons Leadership Change\n## J. Michael Quinlan Resigns; Kathleen Hawk Named Successor\n# BJS Findings on Felony Defendants","[{\"question\":\"What did the U.S. Supreme Court uphold regarding repeat-offender laws?\",\"answer\":\"The Court upheld the way states apply repeat-offender laws that allow stiffer prison terms based on prior convictions.\"},{\"question\":\"Who carries the responsibility to show that a prior conviction was constitutionally valid in the described scenario?\",\"answer\":\"In the Court’s view, the defendant is responsible to produce the court transcript when a recidivist challenges a prior conviction for the first time and when there are no apparent legal irregularities.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Court address incomplete or missing prior court records?\",\"answer\":\"The opinion stated it is not unusual for records to be incomplete and that it generally is not the state’s responsibility to track down missing records to prove a prior conviction was proper, especially absent alleged government misconduct.\"}]","SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS METHOD OF SENTENCING REPEAT OFFENDERS IN STATES - December 9, 1992 Issue | PDF",1790710251,28]