Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Oyler v. Boles — Opinion of the Court

As interpreted by its highest court, West Virginia's recidivist statute does not require the State to notify the defendant prior to trial on the substantive offense that information of his prior convictions will be presented in the event he is found guilty. [7] Thus notice of the State's invocation of the statute is first brought home to the accused when, after conviction on the substantive offense but before sentencing, the information is read to him in open court as was done here. At this point petitioners were required to plead to the information.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Oyler v. Boles — Opinion of the Court

Like Oyler, he also raised the equal protection ground.
Petitioners recognize that the constitutionality of the practice of inflicting severer criminal penalties upon habitual offenders is no longer open to serious challenge; [5] however, they contend that in West Virginia such penalties are being invoked in an unconstitutional manner. It is petitioners' position that procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires notice of the habitual criminal accusation before the trial on the third offense or at least in time to afford a reasonable opportunity to meet the recidivist charge.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature