Opinion of the Court 1991) (NJC-129846), and several have been enacted by the Federal Government, as well, see, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §924(e) (Armed Career Criminal Act); 21 U. S. C. §§ 842(c)(2)(b), 843(c), 844(a) (provisions of the Controlled Substances Act); see also United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1 (Nov. 1992) (prior criminal conduct enhances criminal history for purpose of determining sentencing range). States have a valid interest in deterring and segregating habitual criminals. See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263, 284 (1980). We have said before that a charge under a recidivism statute does not state a separate offense, but goes to punishment only. See Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 452 (1962); Graham, supra, at 623-624; McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U. S. 311, 313 (1901). And we have repeatedly upheld recidivism statutes "against contentions that they violate constitutional strictures dealing with double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, equal protection, and privileges and immunities." Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 560 (1967) (citing Oyler, supra; Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728 (1948); Graham, supra; McDonald, supra; Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673 (1895)). But see Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277 (1983) (life sentence without parole imposed under recidivism statute violated Eighth Amendment when current conviction was for passing a bad check and prior offenses were similarly minor). The States' freedom to define the types of convictions that may be used for sentence enhancement is not unlimited. In Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109 (1967), we held that uncounseled convictions cannot be used "against a person either to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense." Id., at 115. This Court has nevertheless also expressed a willingness to uphold, under the Due Process Clause, a variety of state procedures for implementing otherwise valid recidivism statutes. See Spencer, supra (due process allows government to introduce proof of past convictions before Opinion of the Court jury has rendered guilt determination for current offense); Oyler, supra (due process does not require advance notice that trial for substantive offense will be followed by habitualcriminal accusation). As Justice Harlan observed 25 years ago in Spencer, the Court is not "a rule-making organ for the promulgation of state rules of criminal procedure." 385 U. S., at 564. "Tolerance for a spectrum of state procedures dealing with [recidivism] is especially appropriate" given the high rate of recidivism and the diversity of approaches that States have developed for addressing it. Id., at 566. We think this reasoning remains persuasive today; studies suggest that as many as two-thirds of those arrested have prior criminal records, often from other jurisdictions. See Department of Justice, supra, at 1; see also Spencer, supra, at 566, n. 9. The narrow question we face is whether due process permits Kentucky to employ its particular burden-ofproof scheme when allowing recidivism defendants to attack previous convictions as invalid under Boykin. In our view, Kentucky's burden-shifting rule easily passes constitutional muster. B As an initial matter, we decline to reach the broad argument advanced by petitioner and the Solicitor General that Kentucky's procedure is a fortiori constitutional because, with narrow exceptions not applicable here, due process does not require state courts to permit challenges to guilty pleas used for enhancement purposes at all. Petitioner did not make this argument below or in his petition for certiorari. We ordinarily do not reach issues not raised in the petition for certiorari, see Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 535 (1992), and it is unnecessary for us to determine whether States must allow recidivism defendants to challenge prior guilty pleas because Kentucky does allow such challenges. We turn, then, to the question before us. It is beyond dispute that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary. See, e. g., Boykin, 395 U. S., at 242; Mc Opinion of the Court Carthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459, 466 (1969). "The standard was and remains whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant." North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25, 31 (1970). That is so because a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of three constitutional rights: the right to a jury trial, the right to confront one's accusers, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Boykin, 395 U. S., at 243. In Boykin the Court found reversible error when a trial judge accepted a defendant's guilty plea without creating a record affirmatively showing that the plea was knowing and voluntary. Id., at 242. The Sixth Circuit thought rejection of Kentucky's burden-shifting scheme compelled by Boykin's statement that the waiver of rights resulting from a guilty plea cannot be "presume[d] . . . from a silent record." Id., at 243. Kentucky favors the prosecution with only an initial presumption upon proof of the existence of a prior judgment; but because a defendant may be unable to offer rebuttal evidence, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that Kentucky's procedure improperly permits the Commonwealth to carry its burden of persuasion upon a "bare record of a conviction." Simmons, 877 F. 2d, at 1278. We see no tension between the Kentucky scheme and Boykin. Boykin involved direct review of a conviction allegedly based upon an uninformed guilty plea. Respondent, however, never appealed his earlier convictions. They became final years ago, and he now seeks to revisit the question of their validity in a separate recidivism proceeding. To import Boykin's presumption of invalidity into this very different context would, in our view, improperly ignore another presumption deeply rooted in our jurisprudence: the "presumption of regularity" that attaches to final judgments, even when the question is waiver of constitutional rights. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464, 468 (1938). Although we are perhaps most familiar with this principle in habeas corpus actions, see, e. g., Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, Opinion of the Court 887 (1983); Johnson, supra, it has long been applied equally to other forms of collateral attack, see, e. g., Voorhees v. Jackson, 10 Pet. 449, 472 (1836) (observing, in a collateral challenge to a court-ordered sale of property in an ejectment action, that "[t]here is no principle of law better settled, than that every act of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be presumed to have been rightly done, till the contrary appears"). Respondent, by definition, collaterally attacked his previous convictions; he sought to deprive them of their normal force and effect in a proceeding that had an independent purpose other than to overturn the prior judgments. See Black's Law Dictionary 261 (6th ed. 1990); see also Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55, 58, 65 (1980) (challenge to uncounseled prior conviction used as predicate for subsequent conviction characterized as "collateral"). There is no good reason to suspend the presumption of regularity here. This is not a case in which an extant transcript is suspiciously "silent" on the question whether the defendant waived constitutional rights. Evidently, no transcripts or other records of the earlier plea colloquies exist at all. Transcripts of guilty plea proceedings are normally made in Kentucky only if a direct appeal is taken or upon the trial judge's specific direction, Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-14, and the stenographer's notes and any tapes made of the proceedings normally are not preserved more than five years, id., at 16-17. The circumstance of a missing or nonexistent record is, we suspect, not atypical, particularly when the prior conviction is several years old. But Boykin colloquies have been required for nearly a quarter century. On collateral review, we think it defies logic to presume from the mere unavailability of a transcript (assuming no allegation that the unavailability is due to governmental misconduct) that the defendant was not advised of his rights. In this situation, Boykin does not prohibit a state court from presuming, at least initially, that a final judgment of conviction offered for purposes of sentence enhancement was validly obtained. Opinion of the Court Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109 (1967), does not necessitate a different result. There the Court held that a prior conviction could not be used for sentence enhancement because the record of the earlier proceeding did not show that the defendant had waived his right to counsel. Id., at 114-115. Respondent suggests that because Burgett involved a state recidivism proceeding, it stands for the proposition that every previous conviction used to enhance punishment is "presumptively void" if waiver of a claimed constitutional right does not appear from the face of the record. Brief for Respondent 14-15. We do not read the decision so broadly. At the time the prior conviction at issue in Burgett was entered, state criminal defendants' federal constitutional right to counsel had not yet been recognized, and so it was reasonable to presume that the defendant had not waived a right he did not possess. As we have already explained, the same cannot be said about a record that, by virtue of its unavailability on collateral review, fails to show compliance with the well-established Boykin requirements. Respondent argues that imposing even a burden of production on him is fundamentally unfair because "a constitutionally protected right is in question." Brief for Respondent 15. By this he apparently refers to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights that a defendant waives by pleading guilty. Our precedents make clear, however, that even when a collateral attack on a final conviction rests on constitutional grounds, the presumption of regularity that attaches to final judgments makes it appropriate to assign a proof burden to the defendant. See, e. g., Johnson, supra, at 468-469. Respondent also contends that Kentucky's rule is unfair because it may be difficult to prove the invalidity of a conviction entered many years ago, perhaps in another jurisdiction, when records are unavailable and witnesses inaccessible. We have little doubt that serious practical difficulties will confront any party assigned an evidentiary burden in such |