Chewning v. Cunningham, No. 63
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DOUGLAS |
| Citation | 7 L.Ed.2d 442,82 S.Ct. 498,368 U.S. 443 |
| Parties | Morgan C. CHEWNING, Petitioner, v. W. K. CUNNINGHAM, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary |
| Docket Number | No. 63 |
| Decision Date | 19 February 1962 |
v.
W. K. CUNNINGHAM, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary.
Daniel J. Meador, Charlottesville, Va., for the petitioner.
Reno S. Harp, III, Richmond, Va., for the respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was sentenced to 10 years in prison under Virginia's recidivist statute. Va.Code, 1950, § 53—296. This statute provides that when it appears that a person convicted of an offense has been previously sentenced 'to
Page 444
a like punishment,' he may be tried on an information that alleges 'the existence of records of prior convictions and the identity of the prisoner with the person named in each.' The statute goes on to provide that the prisoner may deny the existence of any such records, or that he is the same person named therein, or both.
If the existence of the records is denied, the court determines whether they exist. If the court so finds and the prisoner denies he is the person mentioned in the records or remains silent, a jury is impaneled to try that issue. If the jury finds he is the same person and if he has one prior conviction, the court may sentence him for an additional term not to exceed five years. If he has been twice sentenced, the court may impose such additional sentence as it 'may deem proper.'
Petitioner, then imprisoned in Virginia, was charged with having been three times convicted of and sentenced for a felony. He was accordingly tried under the recidivist statute; and he is now serving the sentence imposed at that trial. He brought this habeas corpus proceeding in the Virginia courts to challenge the legality of that sentence. The crux of his complaint was that he was tried and convicted without having had the benefit and aid of counsel, though he had requested one.1 The Law and Equity Court of Richmond denied relief; and the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia refused a writ of error. While the grounds for the action of the Supreme Court of Appeals are not disclosed, the Law and Equity Court wrote an opinion, making clear that it ruled on the federal constitutional claim:
'As to the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, here relied upon, the converse has been adjudicated. In Gryger
Page 445
v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (68 S.Ct. 1256, 92 L.Ed. 1683), where release (on) habeas corpus was sought on the ground that petitioner was without counsel at his recidivist hearing, Mr. Justice Jackson said, in part, as follows (at p. 731 (68 S.Ct. 1256)):
"* * * the State's failure to provide counsel for this petitioner on his plea to the fourth offender charge did not render his conviction and sentence invalid.'
'This holding was adhered to in Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3 (75 S.Ct. 1, 99 L.Ed. 4), where it was decided that, while a State is not required under the Fourteenth Amendment to furnish counsel, it cannot deny the defendant in a repeater hearing of the right to be heard by counsel of his own choice.'
The Law and Equity Court, while conceding that a proceeding under the recidivist statute was 'criminal' and that in that proceeding the accused was entitled to most of the protections afforded defendants in criminal trials, concluded that petitioner was not entitled to have counsel appointed to assist him, since the proceeding was 'only connected with the measure of punishment for the last-committed crime.' Cf. Fitzgerald v. Smyth, 194 Va. 681, 689—690, 74 S.E.2d 810, 816.
We put to one side Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 68 S.Ct. 1256, 92 L.Ed. 1683, on which the Virginia court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Traub
...denied, 370 U.S. 965, 82 S.Ct. 1579, 8 L.Ed.2d 835; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70; Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443, 444, 82 S.Ct. 498, 7 L.Ed.2d 442; and Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 53, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114. Cases regarding the constitutional......
-
In re Carachuri-Rosendo, Interim Decision No. 3592.
...about recidivism to be determined by an Immigration Judge in the first instance could raise due process concerns. Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443, 447 (1962) (finding that due process requires the appointment of counsel to a defendant charged as an habitual offender under Virginia law ......
-
Gideon v. Wainwright, 155
...323 U.S. 471, 65 S.Ct. 363, 89 L.Ed. 398; Hudson v. North Carolina, 363 U.S. 697, 80 S.Ct. 1314, 4 L.Ed.2d 1500; Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443, 82 S.Ct. 498, 7 L.Ed.2d 442. 5. See, e.g., Commonwealth ex rel. Simon v. Maroney, 405 Pa. 562, 176 A.2d 94 (1961); Shaffer v. Warden, 211 Md......
-
Jones v. Cunningham, 8716.
...Reversed and remanded. --------Notes: 1 Since our earlier decision in this case we have twice decided in line with Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443, 82 S.Ct. 498, 7 L.Ed.2d 442 (1962), and other authorities there cited, that trials on serious and legally complex charges were fundamental......
-
Hill v. Hartley, No. CIV S-08-1206 GGH P.
...defendant an opportunity to obtain counsel to defend against a recidivist charge. Id. at 10, 75 S.Ct. 1. See also Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443, 447, 82 S.Ct. 498, 7 L.Ed.2d 442 (1962) (holding that, because "a trial on a charge of being a habitual criminal is such a serious one (Cha......
-
Hendrix v. City of Seattle, No. 1
...has made it clear that the constitutional right to counsel at public expense is limited to felony prosecutions. In Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443, 82 S.Ct. 498, 7 L.Ed.2d 442 (1962), a state case involving habitual criminal charges, the Supreme Court held that the trial court's duty t......
-
State v. Traub
...denied, 370 U.S. 965, 82 S.Ct. 1579, 8 L.Ed.2d 835; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70; Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443, 444, 82 S.Ct. 498, 7 L.Ed.2d 442; and Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 53, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114. Cases regarding the constitutional......
-
State v. Kramer, Nos. L--1040
...a 'critical stage in a criminal proceeding' and that 'we do not stop to consider whether prejudice resulted.' In Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443, 447, 82 S.Ct. 498, 7 L.Ed.2d 442 (1962), also decided after Jenkins, the court upset a conviction under the Virginia Page 548 habitual crimi......