The following excerpt is from Wilsey v. United States, 496 F.2d 619 (2nd Cir. 1974):
We view the judge's comments as ambiguous and the record as unclear. Accordingly, we remand the proceeding so that the district judge may make brief findings as to (1) whether the pre-sentence report contained the challenged convictions; and (2) if so, whether he would have given a different sentence if he had known they were constitutionally invalid. If the answer to both questions is yes, the judge should determine whether the prior convictions were had without counsel, and, if so, he should resentence. If the answer to either (1) or (2) is in the negative, the judge should simply make a finding to that effect, cf.
[496 F.2d 620]
Schawartzberg v. United States, 382 F. 2d 1012 (2d Cir. 1967) (per curiam), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 928, 88 S.Ct. 1817, 20 L.Ed.2d 669 (1968); United States v. Janiec, 464 F.2d 126, 132 (3d Cir. 1972), and not disturb the sentence.[496 F.2d 620]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.