Ex Parte Cecil Patterson

Summary

The Court held that, under the post‑1985 amendments, a new indictment that relies on a prior conviction later declared void contains a cognizable defect, and the defendant’s failure to object to the enhancement provision constitutes a procedural default that bars relief. The Court overruled Ex parte Nivens and remanded the case for the trial court to resolve the ineffective‑assistance claim and any factual issues. Justice Meyers dissented, arguing the applicant is entitled to relief, and Justice Mansfield and Judge Baird filed concurring opinions raising laches and other considerations.