# Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss > Supreme Court of the United States · April 25, 2001 · 532 U.S. 394 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863843 ## Case - **Full name:** LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY Et Al. v. COSS - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** April 25, 2001 - **Citations:** 532 U.S. 394; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 189; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2097; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4029; 69 U.S.L.W. 4285; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3254; 121 S. Ct. 1567; 149 L. Ed. 2d 608; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 3369 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Breyer - **Judges:** O'Connor, Souter, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg - **Cited by:** 547 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863843 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - recognizing that “once a state conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available (or because the defendant did so unsuccessfully), the conviction may be regarded as concl… - concluding that state conviction no longer open to direct or collateral attack may be regarded as conclusively valid, and cannot be challenged through a federal habeas corpus petition, except where petitioner raises a claim of the denial of assistance of counsel as set forth i… - explaining that collateral attack on unchallenged convictions is untenable given the primary and “compelling interest” in the finality of convictions when, because of defendant’s choice not to seek review, the “conviction becomes final and the State that secured the conviction… - holding that “once a state conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available (or because defendant did so unsuccessfully),” the prisoner cannot collaterally attack that p… - holding generally, a defendant may not challenge an enhanced sentence through a § 2254 petition on the ground that a prior conviction on which the enhancement was based was unconstitutionally obtained where that prior conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack… ## Opinion text Justice Breyer, dissenting. Because the Commonwealth has failed to argue in this Court that the trial court’s consideration of respondent’s 1986 convictions was harmless, and consequently, the issue has not been briefed, I would not overturn the Court of Appeals’ finding that respondent’s sentence was enhanced based on the purportedly defective 1986 convictions. The Court of Appeals, however, operated under the belief that the Constitution generally requires 28 U. S. C. §2254 (1994 ed., Supp. V) petitioners to be able to attack prior convictions that enhanced their sentences. It did not focus on whether the § 2254 proceeding was “the first and only forum available for review of [respondent’s] prior conviction[s].” Ante, at 406. Accordingly, I would vacate the decision below and remand for consideration of that issue. As respondent has not yet shown that he was denied a forum in which to raise his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, any discussion of a constitutionally based exception is premature. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863843. Public record. Not legal advice.