In Oyler v. Boles, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the application of West Virginia's habitual criminal statute. The petitioner, James Oyler, was convicted of breaking and entering in 1958 and sentenced under this statute due to his previous convictions for similar offenses in other states. He argued that he had not been informed prior to trial that he would be subject to enhanced sentencing as a habitual offender if found guilty again, which violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court disagreed with Oyler’s argument stating there is no constitutional requirement for advance notice that one will face charges as a repeat offender upon conviction of an underlying crime; it suffices if such notice comes before actual sentencing so long as defendant has opportunity then or earlier at trial itself to challenge validity of prior convictions being used against him/her. Furthermore, they rejected his claim about selective enforcement saying proof must show intentional discrimination based on unjustifiable standards like race or religion rather than prosecutorial discretion alone.

In the dissenting opinion for Oyler v. Boles, Justice Douglas argued that due process was violated because the defendant was not informed before trial that he could face enhanced punishment under West Virginia's habitual criminal statute. He believed this lack of notice denied the defendant a fair opportunity to defend himself against such charges and prepare an appropriate defense strategy. Furthermore, Douglas contended that it is fundamentally unfair to allow prosecutors discretion in deciding when to seek enhanced penalties based on prior convictions without providing any guidelines or standards for making these decisions. This arbitrary application of law, according to him, violates principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.