HAROLD L. MCGHEE, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES L. WOLFF, JR., WARDEN, NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief, finding prior convictions used for sentence enhancement were constitutionally valid.
Appellant was convicted of assaulting police officers and sentenced as an habitual criminal based on prior convictions. He challenged the validity of …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Validity Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, having been convicted in a Nebraska state court on January 15, 1968, on three counts of assaulting a police officer, is confined in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. Following his trial for assault, the Nebraska court, after a hearing, found that appellant was an habitual criminal ui.der Nebraska law and sentenced him to ten years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. State v. McGhee, 184 Neb. 352, 167 N.W. 2d 765 (1969).
Appellant sought relief in the United States District Court upon six grounds which are enumerated in Judge Ur-bom’s opinion reported at McGhee v. Sig-ler, 328 F.Supp. 538 (D.Neb.1971).
Appellant, in his pro se brief, seeks reversal of the district court’s order on the ground that his 1952 conviction in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska was invalid and his 1960 conviction in the District Court of Pocahontas County, Iowa also was invalid. Consequently it is argued that neither the 1952 conviction nor the 1960 conviction could form the basis for enhancement of his 1968 conviction referred to above. Judge Urbom carefully considered all of appellant’s claims and, in a soundly reasoned opinion, convincingly demonstrated that both the 1952 and 1960 convictions were constitutionally valid. We agree and affirm on the basis of Judge Urbom’s opinion.