## Facts

- West Virginia’s habitual criminal statute required a mandatory life sentence upon a third conviction for a crime punishable by penitentiary confinement, triggered by a prosecutor’s information filed immediately after conviction and before sentencing.
- James W. Oyler was convicted of second-degree murder; sentencing was deferred, and the prosecutor filed a recidivist information alleging prior penitentiary-eligible convictions.
- In open court, after being cautioned about the information’s effect, Oyler—represented by counsel—acknowledged he was the person previously convicted and received a mandatory life sentence.
- Paul H. Crabtree was convicted of a penitentiary-eligible offense; the prosecutor filed a similar habitual criminal information based on prior convictions, and Crabtree—represented by counsel—received a mandatory life sentence.
- In state habeas proceedings, both petitioners argued (1) due process was denied because they lacked advance notice before trial that recidivist proceedings would follow, and (2) equal protection was denied because the statute was enforced against only a minority of eligible offenders.
- The state court denied relief; the U.S. Supreme Court granted review and considered the cases together.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires advance notice, before trial on the substantive offense, that the State intends to seek a habitual criminal enhancement.
2. Whether due process was violated because the petitioners lacked a reasonable opportunity to defend against the recidivist informations once filed.
3. Whether selective enforcement of the habitual criminal statute against only some eligible offenders violates equal protection absent proof the selection rested on an unjustifiable classification.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- Due process does not require advance notice that a habitual criminal information will be filed after conviction on the substantive offense.
- Due process requires a reasonable opportunity to defend against the recidivist accusation; the record showed petitioners had counsel and did not seek a continuance or contest identity or prior convictions.
- Uneven enforcement of the recidivist statute, without evidence the selection was based on an invidious or arbitrary classification, does not violate equal protection.

## Legal Principles

- A habitual offender proceeding is treated as a sentencing enhancement based on prior convictions, not a separate substantive offense.
- The Fourteenth Amendment does not require pretrial notice that a habitual offender enhancement will be pursued.
- The Fourteenth Amendment requires a reasonable opportunity to contest the habitual offender allegation after it is filed, including the chance to challenge identity and the existence or validity of prior convictions.
- Selective enforcement is not unconstitutional by itself; equal protection is violated only when enforcement is deliberately based on an unjustifiable standard (such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification).

## Conclusion

The Court upheld West Virginia’s mandatory life sentence procedure, holding that due process is satisfied when a defendant, after a recidivist information is filed, has a reasonable opportunity to contest it, and that equal protection is not offended by partial enforcement absent proof of intentional discrimination based on an unjustifiable classification.


Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962)