Hortencio v. Fillis, 11963
| Citation | 25 Utah 2d 73,475 P.2d 1011 |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 11963,11963 |
| Parties | d 73 Robert HORTENCIO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dewey FILLIS, Chief of Police of Salt Lake City, Utah, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Ronald N. Boyce, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Jack L. Crellin, City Atty., Roger F. Cutler, Asst. City Atty., Salt Lake City, for defendant-respondent.
The plaintiff filed his petition in the District Court of Salt Lake County for a writ of habeas corpus. The plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated by the City Court of Salt Lake City in a criminal proceeding wherein he was denied the assistance of counsel in his defense.
From an adverse decision in the court below the plaintiff has appealed to this court seeking a reversal and discharge from a balance of a six-month sentence imposed upon him.
In August 1969, the plaintiff was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace and public intoxication in violation of the ordinances of Salt Lake City. On his arraignment in the City Court of Salt Lake City, the plaintiff was informed of his right to be represented by counsel and he entered a plea of not guilty and requested the court to appoint counsel to assist him at the trial. The plaintiff was unemployed and possessed only meager personal belongings and was financially unable to retain counsel. The judge of the City Court denied the plaintiff's request on the ground that he did not have authority to appoint counsel for an indigent charged with a misdemeanor. Prior to the date of trial the plaintiff entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to serve six months in the city jail, which sentence was suspended by the court, and the plaintiff was placed on probation for the period of one year. Subsequently the plaintiff was again arrested and charged with public intoxication. A probation revocation hearing was had which resulted in the plaintiff being ordered to serve the jail sentence pronounced by the court. At the revocation hearing the plaintiff requested the court to appoint counsel to assist him.
The plaintiff here contends that denial of his right to counsel was in violation of Section 12, Article I, of the Utah Constitution, and of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The United States Supreme Court in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright 1 decided that an indigent defendant who was charged with a felony in a state court was entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel, and that the failure of the state court to assign counsel to assist the defendant in his own defense was in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This constitutional standard was approved by this court in the case of Alires v. Turner. 2
All persons charged with a criminal offense are entitled to be represented by counsel, and here we are asked to hold that an indigent defendant charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to have counsel assigned to represent him.
The cases from other jurisdictions dealing with the right of a defendant charged with a misdemeanor to have appointed counsel to assist him are in conflict. The decisions of state courts that have dealt with the problem go in both directions. The decisions from the federal circuit courts are likewise in conflict. The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari to state appellate courts; and the ruling in Gideon has not been extended to misdemeanor cases. 3
In 1965 the Utah Legislature provided for the assignment of counsel to represent indigent defendants and to authorize the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweeten v. Sneddon
...preclude the appointment of counsel, in the discretion of the court, in cases involving a lesser maximum penalty. Hortencio v. Fillis, 25 Utah 2d 73, 475 P.2d 1011 (1970). The Utah Legislature has additionally declared, Utah Code Ann. § 77-64-1 (Supp. 1969), minimum standards to be provided......
-
Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt
...555, 157 N.W.2d 567 (1968); cf. City of Toledo v. Frazier, 10 Ohio App.2d 51, 226 N.E.2d 777, 781--783 (1967); Hortencio v. Fillis, 25 Utah 2d 73, 475 P.2d 1011, 1012 (1970); Silverstein, Defense of the Poor in Criminal Cases in American State Courts 123 (1965); Junker, 'The Right to Counse......
-
Roberts v. Janco, Civ. A. No. C-71-97-E.
...9 Rodriquez v. Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281, 277 A.2d 216 (1971); Newell v. State, 277 A.2d 731 (Me.Sup.Jud.Ct.1971); Hortencio v. Fillis, 25 Utah 2d 73, 475 P.2d 1011 (1970). 10 See cases and commentary cited in Beck v. Winters, 407 F.2d 125, 130 n. 11 (8th Cir. 11 See State v. Gilliland, 51 W.......
-
City of St. George v. Smith, 910663-CA
...counsel can be harmless error to be inadequately supported and we decline to consider it. We further conclude that Hortencio v. Fillis, 25 Utah 2d 73, 475 P.2d 1011 (1970) cert. denied, 402 U.S. 966, 91 S.Ct. 1636, 29 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) and Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake County, 520 P.2d 211 (......