People v. Logan

Mr. PRESIDNG JUSTICE CRAVEN,

dissenting:

I dissent.

The substantive effect of the holding of the majority in this case is that nothing can be done in a post-conviction proceeding about an enhanced penalty that was imposed because of a prior conviction even though the prior conviction has been reversed. The majority holds that unless the prior conviction was void because of constitutional infirmity, the fact of reversal is not cognizable in a post-conviction proceeding.

Thus, under the majority opinion, if a defendant is convicted of an offense and appeals and is subsequently convicted of another…