Custis v. United States Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A defendant facing a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) cannot challenge the constitutional validity of prior state convictions during the federal sentencing hearing, unless he was completely denied a lawyer for those prior convictions.
Legal Significance: This case severely limits a defendant’s ability to collaterally attack prior convictions during federal sentencing, creating a narrow exception only for violations of the fundamental right to counsel established in Gideon v. Wainwright.
Custis v. United States Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Darren J. Custis was convicted in federal court for possession of a firearm by a felon. The government sought a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on three of Custis’s prior state felony convictions. At his federal sentencing hearing, Custis attempted to collaterally attack two of these prior convictions. He argued that his 1985 Maryland burglary conviction was invalid because he had received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel and his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent as required by Boykin v. Alabama. He challenged his 1989 Maryland attempted burglary conviction on the grounds that his “stipulated facts” trial was tantamount to a guilty plea for which he was not adequately advised of his rights. The District Court ultimately ruled that it could not entertain these challenges to the prior convictions during the sentencing proceeding. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the only permissible collateral attack was for a complete denial of counsel.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a defendant in a federal sentencing proceeding collaterally attack the validity of prior state convictions used to enhance his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act?
No. The Court held that neither the ACCA nor the Constitution permits Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum do
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May a defendant in a federal sentencing proceeding collaterally attack the validity of prior state convictions used to enhance his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act?
Conclusion
This decision significantly streamlines federal sentencing under recidivist statutes by foreclosing most Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
Legal Rule
A defendant has no statutory or constitutional right to collaterally attack the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded on two grounds: statutory interpretation and constitutional requirement. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant cannot collaterally attack prior convictions during a federal sentencing