United States Reports, Volume 530: Cases Adjudged in The Supreme Court at October Term, 1999 Page: 176
lxxv, 1-913, 1001-1216 p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
RAMDASS v. ANGELONE
Opinion of KENNEDY, J.
ineligibility instruction for a defendant who would become
ineligible only in the event a trial judge in a different county
entered final judgment in an unrelated criminal case.
Ramdass complains that the Virginia Supreme Court's se-
lection of the entry of judgment rather than the jury verdict
is arbitrary. He points out that a trial court may set the
judgment aside within 21 days after its entry. Va. Sup. Ct.
Rule 1:1 (1999). Appeal is also permitted. We agree with
Ramdass that the availability of postjudgment relief in the
trial court or on appeal renders uncertain the finality and
reliability of even a judgment in the trial court. Our own
jurisprudence under Teague v. Lane, for example, does not
consider a Virginia-state-court conviction final until the di-
rect review process is completed. O'Dell v. Netherland, 521
U. S., at 157. States may take different approaches and we
see no support for a rule that would require a State to
declare a conviction final for purposes of a three-strikes
statute once a verdict has been rendered. Verdicts may be
overturned by the state trial court, by a state appellate
court, by the state supreme court, by a state court on col-
lateral attack, by a federal court in habeas corpus, or by
this Court on review of any of these proceedings. Virginia's
approach, which would permit a Simmons instruction de-
spite the availability of postjudgment relief that might, the
day after the jury is instructed that the defendant is pa-
role ineligible, undo one of the strikes supporting the in-
struction, provided Ramdass sufficient protection. A judg-
ment, not a verdict, is the usual measure for finality in the
trial court.
Our conclusion is confirmed by a review of petitioner's con-
duct in this litigation. The current claim that it was certain
at the time of trial that Ramdass would never be released
on parole in the event the jury sentenced him to life is belied
by the testimony his counsel elicited from him at sentencing.
Ramdass' counsel asked him, "Are you going to spend the
rest of your life in prison?" Despite the claim advanced176
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Wagner, Frank D. United States Reports, Volume 530: Cases Adjudged in The Supreme Court at October Term, 1999, book, 2001; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc158378/m1/228/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.