Scott because no prison term was imposed, is also valid when used to enhance punishment at a subsequent conviction.” Nichols, _ U.S. at _, 114 S. Ct. at 1928. In this Court’s decision in James, we similarly held that where a defendant was represented by counsel or validly waived counsel in an earlier criminal proceeding, that conviction could be used in the sentencing phase of a subsequent trial. Id. at 752, 446 S.E.2d at 904. However, we also stated the Commonwealth cannot constitutionally introduce evidence of a prior conviction in a subsequent trial, where that prior conviction resulted in the imposition of a prison sentence, unless the defendant had been represented or validly waived representation. Id. at 751-52, 446 S.E.2d at 903. See United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456, 464
holding that the state had the burden of proving the defendants two prior convictions in order to obtain the felony dui conviction holding a sentence enhancement for two prior convictions must be based on separate criminal episodes holding that prisoner sentenced on basis of two prior unconstitutional convictions had to be resentenced recognizing that prisoners former attorney had a significant relationship with the prisoner for purposes of next friend standing because attorney had acted on behalf of the prisoner in prior legal proceedings holding that a term of imprisonment begins at the time a prisoner is sentenced