Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Weeks

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Young

    863 N.W.2d 249 (Iowa 2015)   Cited 26 times
    Holding a defendant's prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction could not be used as a predicate offense to enhance sentence for subsequent third-degree theft conviction

    In a footnote, the Johnson court noted that at least eleven jurisdictions had adopted the Custis framework. See id. at 1275 n. 7 (citing Camp v. State, 364 Ark. 459, 221 S.W.3d 365, 369–70 (2006); People v. Padilla, 907 P.2d 601, 606 (Colo.1995) (en banc); State v. Veikoso, 102 Hawai'i 219, 74 P.3d 575, 580, 582 (2003); State v. Weber, 140 Idaho 89, 90 P.3d 314, 318–20 (2004); State v. Delacruz, 258 Kan. 129, 899 P.2d 1042, 1049 (1995); McGuire v. Commonwealth, 885 S.W.2d 931, 937 (Ky.1994); People v. Carpentier, 446 Mich. 19, 521 N.W.2d 195, 199–200 (1994); State v. Weeks, 141 N.H. 248, 681 A.2d 86, 89–90 (1996); State v. Mund, 593 N.W.2d 760, 761 (N.D.1999); State v. Boskind, 174 Vt. 184, 807 A.2d 358, 360, 362–64 (2002); State v. Hahn, 238 Wis.2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, 532, 535 (2000)). Some state cases go somewhat beyond the Custis approach in their application of state law.

  2. State v. Burkett

    2014 S.D. 38 (S.D. 2014)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Burkett, 2014 S.D. 38, 849 N.W.2d 624, an unidentified-but-identifiable informant contacted law enforcement to report a possibly intoxicated driver.

    Many states have recognized that constitutional considerations do not require courts to entertain collateral attacks on prior convictions used for enhancement purposes unless the defendant claims the predicate conviction was uncounseled. See State v. Johnson, 38 A.3d 1270, 1278 (Me.2012); Camp v. State, 364 Ark. 459, 221 S.W.3d 365, 369–70 (2006); State v. Weber, 140 Idaho 89, 90 P.3d 314, 319–20 (2004); State v. Veikoso, 102 Hawai‘i 219, 74 P.3d 575, 582–83 (2003); State v. Hahn, 238 Wis.2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, 535 (2000); State v. Louthan, 257 Neb. 174, 595 N.W.2d 917, 926–27 (1999); State v. Mund, 593 N.W.2d 760, 761–62 (N.D.1999); State v. Weeks, 141 N.H. 248, 681 A.2d 86, 89–90 (1996); State v. Delacruz, 258 Kan. 129, 899 P.2d 1042, 1049 (1995); McGuire v. Commonwealth, 885 S.W.2d 931, 937 (Ky.1994), People v. Carpentier, 446 Mich. 19, 521 N.W.2d 195, 199–200 (1994). In contrast, a smaller number of states have examined Custis and explicitly declined to adopt the reasoning based on an interpretation that the state's constitution offers greater protection than that afforded by the United States Constitution.

  3. State v. Johnson

    38 A.3d 1270 (Me. 2012)   Cited 11 times
    In Johnson, a defendant sought to collaterally attack a prior conviction in a sentence-enhancement context on the ground that although he was represented in the prior proceeding, he was not properly informed of his rights under a state rule of criminal procedure.

    At least eleven states have adopted, expressly or implicitly, the Custis framework. See Camp v. State, 364 Ark. 459, 221 S.W.3d 365, 369–70 (2006); State v. Veikoso, 102 Hawai‘i 219, 74 P.3d 575, 582 (2003); State v. Weber, 140 Idaho 89, 90 P.3d 314, 319–20 (2004); State v. Delacruz, 258 Kan. 129, 899 P.2d 1042, 1049 (1995); McGuire v. Commonwealth, 885 S.W.2d 931, 937 (Ky.1994); People v. Carpentier, 446 Mich. 19, 521 N.W.2d 195, 199–200 (1994); State v. Weeks, 141 N.H. 248, 681 A.2d 86, 89–90 (1996); State v. Mund, 1999 ND 90, ¶¶ 8–10, 593 N.W.2d 760; State v. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, ¶ 28, 238 Wis.2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528; see also People v. Padilla, 907 P.2d 601, 606 (Colo.1995) (applying the Custis restriction as a matter of federal constitutional law in the discretionary sentencing context, as opposed to in the context of mandatory sentencing enhancements); State v. Boskind, 174 Vt. 184, 807 A.2d 358, 360, 362–64 (2002) (discussing Custis and holding that, when not based on a violation of the right to counsel, collateral challenges to a prior conviction used to enhance a sentence may not be brought during sentencing proceedings, but may be brought in a post-conviction proceeding based on the enhanced sentence).

  4. State v. Maine

    360 Mont. 182 (Mont. 2011)   Cited 35 times
    Allowing collateral attacks under interpretation of the Montana constitution

    " Carpentier, 521 N.W.2d at 199-200 (internal citations omitted). ¶ 55 In State v. Weeks, 681 A.2d 86 (N.H. 1996), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire considered the defendant's challenge to a prior misdemeanor stalking conviction on the ground that the stalking statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Weeks, 681 A.2d at 89.

  5. In re Bowman Search Warrants

    146 N.H. 621 (N.H. 2001)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that “in most pre-indictment criminal investigations, the existence of the investigation itself” will justify sealing search warrant materials

    Because the issues raised involve only New Hampshire law, we decide this case on state law only, considering cases from the federal courts only as an analytical aid. See State v. Weeks, 141 N.H. 248, 249 (1996). The New Hampshire constitutional and statutory provisions relevant to our decision are as follows:

  6. Millette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison

    141 N.H. 653 (N.H. 1997)

    The State does not argue that the petitioner failed to raise a proper issue for a collateral challenge to a prior conviction. See State v. Weeks, 141 N.H. 248, 252-253, 681 A.2d 86, 89-90 (1996); State v. Janes, 141 N.H. 364, 366, 684 A.2d 499, 500 (1996). Therefore, we do not address the argument here.