In the case of Al C. Parke, Warden v. Ricky Harold Raley in 1992, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a prior conviction can be used to enhance a sentence for a subsequent offense even if the defendant had no counsel during his first trial and was not advised of his right to one. The court held that such an enhancement does not violate due process clause or principles of fairness because it is based on factual findings from previous trials rather than legal errors made by defendants who were unrepresented at those trials. This decision clarified how courts should interpret and apply sentencing guidelines when considering past convictions where defendants did not have legal representation.

In the dissenting opinion for AL C. Parke, Warden v. Ricky Harold Raley, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and undermined a defendant’s constitutional rights. He emphasized that it is fundamentally unfair to penalize a defendant for failing to object at trial when he has no reason to believe there is anything objectionable about his sentence until years later when new law arises. The justice also noted that in this case, Raley had no way of knowing at the time of his sentencing hearing that Kentucky would change its laws regarding persistent felony offenders or how those changes might affect him retroactively. Therefore, according to Justice Blackmun, it was unreasonable and unjustifiable for the court to expect Raley or any other similarly situated defendants to anticipate future legal developments and raise objections accordingly.