Scott v. Illinois
Decision Date | 05 March 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 77-1177,77-1177 |
Parties | Aubrey SCOTT, Petitioner, v. State of ILLINOIS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioner, an indigent, was convicted of shoplifting and was fined $50 after a bench trial in an Illinois state court. The applicable Illinois statute set the maximum penalty for such an offense at a $500 fine, one year in jail, or both. Petitioner's conviction was ultimately affirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court, over the petitioner's contention that a line of cases culminating in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530, requires state provision of counsel whenever imprisonment is an authorized penalty. Held: The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require that no indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State has afforded him the right to assistance of appointed counsel in his defense, but do not require a state trial court to appoint counsel for a criminal defendant, such as petitioner, who is charged with a statutory offense for which imprisonment upon conviction is authorized but not imposed. Pp. 369-374.
(a) Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, limits the constitutional right to appointed counsel in state criminal proceedings to a case that actually leads to imprisonment. P. 373.
(b) Even were the matter res nova, Argersinger's central premise—that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or the mere threat of imprisonment—is eminently sound and warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel. P. 373.
John S. Elson, Chicago, Ill. for petitioner.
Gerri Papushkewych, Asst. Atty. Gen., Springfield, Ill., for respondent.
We granted certiorari in this case to resolve a conflict among state and lower federal courts regarding the proper application of our decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972).1 436 U.S. 925, 98 S.Ct. 2817, 56 L.Ed.2d 767. Petitioner Scott was convicted of theft and fined $50 after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. His conviction was affirmed by the state intermediate appellate court and then by the Supreme Court of Illinois, over Scott's contention that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution required that Illinois provide trial counsel to him at its expense.
Petitioner Scott was convicted of shoplifting merchandise valued at less than $150. The applicable Illinois statute set the maximum penalty for such an offense at a $500 fine or one year in jail, or both.2 The petitioner argues that a line of this Court's cases culminating in Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, requires state provision of counsel whenever imprisonment is an authorized penalty.
The Supreme Court of Illinois rejected this contention, quoting the following language from Argersinger :
"We hold, therefore, that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial." 407 U.S., at 37, 92 S.Ct., at 2012.
Id., at 40, 92 S.Ct., at 2014.
The Supreme Court of Illinois went on to state that it was "not inclined to extend Argersinger " to the case where a defendant is charged with a statutory offense for which imprisonment upon conviction is authorized but not actually imposed upon the defendant. 68 Ill.2d 269, 272, 12 Ill.Dec. 174, 177, 369 N.E.2d 881, 882 (1977). We agree with the Supreme Court of Illinois that the Federal Constitution does not require a state trial court to appoint counsel for a criminal defendant such as petitioner, and we therefore affirm its judgment.
In his petition for certiorari, petitioner referred to the issue in this case as "the question left open in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972)." Pet. for Cert. 5. Whether this question was indeed "left open" in Argersinger depends upon whether one considers that opinion to be a point in a moving line or a holding that the States are required to go only so far in furnishing counsel to indigent defendants. The Supreme Court of Illinois, in quoting the above language from Argersinger, clearly viewed the latter as Argersinger's holding. Additional support for this proposition may be derived from the concluding paragraph of the opinion in that case:
407 U.S., at 40, 92 S.Ct., at 2014.
Petitioner, on the other hand, refers to language in the Court's opinion, responding to the opinion of Mr. Justice Powell, which states that the Court "need not consider the requirements of the Sixth Amendment as regards the right to counsel where loss of liberty is not involved . . . for here petitioner was in fact sentenced to jail." Id., at 37, 92 S.Ct., at 2012.
There is considerable doubt that the Sixth Amendment itself, as originally drafted by the Framers of the Bill of Rights, contemplated any guarantee other than the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution in a federal court to employ a lawyer to assist in his defense. W. Beaney, The Right to Counsel in American Courts 27-30 (1955). In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), the Court held that Alabama was obligated to appoint counsel for the Scottsboro defendants, phrasing the inquiry as "whether the defendants were in substance denied the right of counsel, and if so, whether such denial infringes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id., at 52, 53 S.Ct., at 58. It concluded its opinion with the following language:
Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595 (1942), held that not every indigent defendant accused in a state criminal prosecution was entitled to appointment of counsel. A determination had to be made in each individual case whether failure to appoint counsel was a denial of fundamental fairness. Betts was in turn overruled in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). In Gideon, Betts was described as holding "that a refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ." Id., at 339, 83 S.Ct., at 793.
Several Terms later the Court held in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968), that the right to jury trial in federal court guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment was applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held, however: Id., at 159, 88 S.Ct., at 1453 (footnote omitted). In Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1888, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970), the controlling opinion of Mr. Justice White concluded that "no offense can be deemed 'petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized."
In Argersinger the State of Florida urged that a similar dichotomy be employed in the right-to-counsel area: Any offense punishable by less than six months in jail should not require appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant.3 The Argersinger Court rejected this analogy, however, observing that "the right to trial by jury has a different genealogy and is brigaded with a system of trial to a judge alone." 407 U.S., at 29, 92 S.Ct., at 2008.
The number of separate opinions in Gideon, Duncan, Baldwin, and Argersinger, suggests that constitutional line drawing becomes more difficult as the reach of the Constitution is extended further, and as efforts are made to transpose lines from one area of Sixth Amendment jurisprudence to another. The process of incorporation creates special difficulties, for the state and federal contexts are often different and application of the same principle may have ramifications distinct in degree and kind. The range of human conduct regulated by state criminal laws is much broader than that of the federal criminal laws, particularly on the "petty" offense part of the spectrum. As a matter of constitutional adjudication, we are, therefore, less willing to extrapolate an already extended line when, although the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
...v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (right to counsel in felony trials) with Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979) (right to counsel in misdemeanor trials), and had attained this position in federal court long before 1954 when the ......
-
Salas v. Cortez
... ... He cannot do so when his indigency prevents him from obtaining counsel. (Ibid.; Krause, supra, at pp. 111-112; cf. Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 U.S. 12, 19, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891.) ... Respondents argue that appellants are not entitled to appointed counsel ... This action is directly contrary to the United States Supreme Court's recent expression on the matter of appointed counsel in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979). In Scott the defendant, an indigent, was convicted of shoplifting and fined $50 ... ...
- Gardner v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court
-
United States v. Schenk
...MANUAL § 4A1.2(c) ("Sentences for misdemeanor and petty offenses are counted, except as follows . . . ."). Relying on Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), Schenk also characterizes as "invalid" the uncounseled plea to the offense of discharging a firearm in public, arguing that it should......
-
Table of Cases
...Cargo v. United States, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 52, 3 L.Ed. 266 (1812), 358 Scopes v. State, 289 S.W. 363 (Tenn. 1927), 1473 Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979), Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141, 21 S.Ct. 48, 45 L.Ed. 126 (1900), 967 Screws v. United States, 32......
-
Today's Confrontation Clause (after Crawford and Melendez-diaz)
...a limitation on the right or simply a statement of the nature of the crime involved in Gideon -a felony-is not clear. Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373-74 (1979) ("We ... hold that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require only that no indigent crimina......
-
A Father's Right to Counsel in Georgia Juvenile Court Legitimation Proceedings: Closing the Due Process Loophole
...that the actual imprisonment standard would not impose too great a burden on the "Nation's legal resources").160. Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373 (1979).161. Case plans for reunification, which must be submitted to the court within thirty days of a child's removal from the family home,......
-
Twenty-Five Years of Batson: An Introduction to Equal Protection Regulation of Peremptory Jury Challenges
...protections for suspects and defendants much more narrowly. See, e.g ., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983); Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979). Nonetheless, the cautious, unprotective opinion in Swain is the Warren Court’s offspring. The majority perceived no equal protection proble......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 52, No. 2. January 8, 2022
...or probation if the right to counsel was not afforded at trial. See Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) and Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979). See Rule 454 (Trial in Summary Cases) concerning the right to counsel at a summary Appointment of counsel can be waived, if such waiver is ......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 46, No. 13. March 26, 2016
...or probation if the right to counsel was not afforded at trial. See Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002), Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), and Argersinger Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972). Certain costs are mandatory and must be im- posed. See, e.g., Section 1101 of the Crime Victims Ac......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 52, No. 02. January 8, 2022
...or probation if the right to counsel was not afforded at trial. See Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) and Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979). See Rule 454 (Trial in Summary Cases) concerning the right to counsel at a summary Appointment of counsel can be waived, if such waiver is ......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 48, No. 02. January 13, 2018
...ment or probation if the right to counsel was not afforded at trial. See Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002), Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), and Argersinger Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972). Certain costs are mandatory and must be imposed. See, e.g., Section 1101 of the Crime Victims......