State v. Ponce

*541Brachtenbach, J.

(concurring; dissenting) — I concur with the holding in the Ponce case and dissent in the Ozuna case.

The issue is rather simple. May a defendant in a habitual traffic offender proceeding attack the validity of one of the underlying traffic convictions collaterally on the basis that his right to counsel had been denied in the earlier proceeding?

There are several principles underlying the answer to that question. First, a collateral attack is permissible only if the judgment in the earlier proceeding is absolutely void. Such a judgment is void only where the court lacked…