GIDEON (1963) HELD THAT A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT TRIAL AND THAT THE STATES MUST PROVIDE COUNSEL FOR INDIGENTS UPON REQUEST. IN ATTEMPTING TO IMPLEMENT THIS RULE, THE COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE NOT AGREED ON THE PROPER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR A TUCKER CHALLENGE TO A SENTENCE. THIS COMMENT DISCUSSES POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO THE THREE MOST TROUBLESOME ISSUES POSED BY TUCKER: 1) THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR INVALIDATING A PRIOR CONVICTION UNDER GIDEON; 2) THE PROPER STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SENTENCING JUDGE SUFFICIENTLY RELIED UPON PRIOR INVALID CONVICTIONS SO AS TO REQUIRE VACATING THE SENTENCE; 3) THE PROPER REMEDY FOR A TUCKER VIOLATION, ONCE ESTABLISHED. ALTHOUGH THE TUCKER PROBLEM CAN THEORETICALLY ARISE IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS, THIS COMMENT DISCUSSES THE PROBLEM ONLY IN THE MOST RECURRENT CONTEXT-WHERE A FEDERAL SENTENCE IS ENHANCED BY CONSIDERATION OF INVALID PRIOR STATE CONVICTIONS, AND THE FEDERAL PRISONER CHALLENGES HIS SENTENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURT THAT SENTENCED HIM UNDER 28 UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2255 (REQUESTING THE SENTENCING DISTRICT COURT TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE). (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)...ELW