In the case of Bobby Lee Ramdass v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections (1999), Ramdass was convicted for a series of robberies and a murder in Virginia. During his sentencing hearing for the murder conviction, he argued that he should not be considered for capital punishment because he had not yet been formally sentenced for one of the robbery convictions - thus technically did not meet the criteria as a future danger to society under Virginia law which required previous violent felony convictions. The jury recommended death sentence and it was imposed by trial court; this decision upheld by state supreme court on appeal. The U.S Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Ramdass' claim that his constitutional rights were violated when jurors weren't told about his pending prison term during sentencing phase in capital trial. The majority opinion held that since at time of sentencing hearing, there wasn’t final judgment on third robbery conviction due to pending motion to set aside verdict – hence it could not be used as evidence mitigating against death penalty.

In the dissenting opinion for Bobby Lee Ramdass v. Ronald J. Angelone, Justice Stevens argued that the jury was not properly informed of Ramdass's parole ineligibility at his sentencing trial and this lack of information could have influenced their decision to sentence him to death. He contended that because Virginia law clearly stated a third felony conviction made an offender ineligible for parole, and since Ramdass had already been convicted twice before his current trial, he should have been considered ineligible regardless of whether or not formal judgment had been entered on his third conviction. The majority’s interpretation effectively allowed procedural technicalities to obscure clear legislative intent regarding punishment severity for repeat offenders. Furthermore, Justice Stevens expressed concern over how such miscommunication might affect future cases where juries are uninformed about key aspects related to defendants' potential sentences.