38 187 Berry v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio 8212 5245
| Decision Date | 05 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73,73 |
| Parties | . 38 L.Ed.2d 187 Richard BERRY v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, —5245 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioner, who was serving a sentence for a misdemeanor offense when Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), was decided, sought relief in the state courts claiming that because Argersinger should be accorded retroactive effect and because his trial and sentencing were uncounseled, his conviction should be invalidated. The Supreme Court of Ohio refused to apply Argersinger to convictions occurring prior to that decision. City of Cincinnati v. Berry, 34 Ohio St.2d 106, 296 N.E.2d 532 (1973). Petitioner was enlarged on bail pending action on his claim and faces reincarceration should the judgment of the Ohio courts remain undisturbed. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed. Those convicted prior to the decision in Argersinger are entitled to the constitutional rule enunciated in that case, Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U.S. 847, 91 S.Ct. 1089, 28 L.Ed.2d 519 (1971); Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 and n. 6, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 1152, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971) (opinion of White, J.); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 114, 88 S.Ct. 258, 261, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967); cf. Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278, 92 S.Ct. 916, 31 L.Ed.2d 202 (1972), if they allege and prove a bona fide, existing case or controversy sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 50—58, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1896—1900, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237—238, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559—1560, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 633—634, n. 2, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 1276—1277, 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968).
Reversed.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Domingo v. New England Fish Co.
...(9th Cir.1976). Prophylactic rules frequently have been given prospective application only. See, e.g., Berry v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 29, 94 S.Ct. 193, 38 L.Ed.2d 187 (per curiam) (rule of automatic habeas if indigent defendant not represented by appointed counsel at trial); Michigan......
-
Empy v. State
...of counsel when a sentence of imprisonment is imposed. This right to counsel applies retroactively. Berry v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 29, 94 S.Ct. 193, 38 L.Ed.2d 187 (1973); Olvera v. Beto, supra. Here, since Thomas was faced with a possible maximum of two years imprisonment and/or a $......
-
Simmons v. Kapture
...Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 40, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), was deemed retroactively applicable in Berry v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 29, 29-30, 94 S.Ct. 193, 38 L.Ed.2d 187 (1973). Finally, the right to counsel on first-tier appeals, recognized in Douglas, has also been retroactively......
-
Howard v. U.S.
...to counsel to any prosecution leading to actual imprisonment was deemed retroactively applicable in Berry v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 29, 29-30, 94 S.Ct. 193, 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 187 (1973). A score that is perfect packs punch in any The implication of all those retroactivity decisions deal......
-
List of Cases Referenced
...v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)Bellis v. United States, 94 S.Ct. 2179 (1974)Berry v. Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 29 Bradley v. Richmond, 94 S.Ct. 2006 (1974)Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)Brescia v. New Jersey, 94 S.Ct. 2630 (1974) California Bankers’ Associ......