Summary

North Carolina v. Rice — Opinion of the Court

Respondent's sole claim under Pearce thus related to the sentence he had completely served when he came before the Court of Appeals. A different question of mootness is therefore presented than the Court of Appeals considered. Nullification of a conviction may have important benefits for a defendant, as outlined above, but urging in a habeas corpus proceeding the correction of a sentence already served is another matter.
Source: Wikisource

North Carolina v. Rice — Opinion of the Court

The Court of Appeals held that the case was not moot because it assumed that Pearce mandated expunction of Rice's conviction and because the conviction, unexpunged, would have collateral consequences entitling Rice to challenge it. A number of disabilities may attach to a convicted defendant even after he has left prison, [1] and the Court has recognized the standing of such persons to challenge the legality of their convictions even when their sentences have been served. [2] It could not be clearer, however, that Pearce does not invalidate the conviction that resulted from Rice's second trial
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature