Dorman v. United States

Decision Date21 October 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-6719,73-6719
Citation95 S.Ct. 214,419 U.S. 945,42 L.Ed.2d 168
PartiesFrank Steven DORMAN v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

In 1973 Frank Dorman was sentenced by the District Court to a term of three years for violating the travel restrictions of his bond and to two concurrent seven-year terms for the interstate transportation of forged checks. In imposing sentence, the trial judge emphasized the 'very, very substantial' record of Dorman's prior convictions. The trial judge learned of these state convictions from a presentence report, which had incorporated the convictions listed in an FBI summary. None of these documents revealed, and it has not been ascertained, whether Dorman had the assistance of counsel at the time these convictions were obtained. On appeal, Dorman sought to have his case remanded for a determination whether he lacked counsel at the time of the prior convictions, and if so far imposition of a new sentence. The Court of Appeals held that Dorman had waived any objection to the trial court's use of the prior convictions by his failure to object after disclosure of the presentence report.

Since the landmark of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1964), we have held that convictions obtained without the provision of counsel for the accused may not be used to enhance punishment under a recidivist statute, Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), nor to influence the determination of a discretionary sentence, United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), nor to impeach the credibility of a defendant at trial, Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473, 92 S.Ct. 1014, 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1973). The guiding principle was stated in Burgett v. Texas:

'To permit a conviction obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright to be used against a person either to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense . . . is to erode the principle of that case. Worse yet, since the defect in the prior conviction was the denial of a right to counsel, the accused in effect suffers anew from the deprivation of that right.' 389 U.S., at 115, 88 S.Ct. 258.

The Court of Appeals permits the defendant's sentence to stand, with ample demonstration that the sentencing judge relied...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • People v. Marquez
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 17, 1984
    ...three and one-half months after failure to appear); United States v. Dorman, 496 F.2d 438 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 945, 95 S.Ct. 214, 42 L.Ed.2d 168 (1974) (willfulness found where defendant was apprehended beyond the geographical limits of the bond approximately one month after t......
  • Trice v. United States, 84-518.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • April 27, 1987
    ...which the defendant had left the jurisdiction, see United States v. Dorman, 496 F.2d 438, 440 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 945, 95 S.Ct. 214, 42 L.Ed.2d 168 (1974); or had gone underground, see United States v. DePugh, 434 F.2d 548, 554 (8th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 978, 91 S......
  • State v. Howery
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 20, 1979
    ...... I .         While Howery's appeal was pending in the Appellate Division, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case [404 A.2d 634] which squarely addressed the same ......
  • Zanetti v. State, 88-281
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 22, 1989
    ...to actively maintain his innocence of any crime. United States v. Dorman, 496 F.2d 438 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 419 U.S. 945, 95 S.Ct. 214, 42 L.Ed.2d 168 (1974). See United States v. Wagner, 256 F.Supp. 574 (D.Conn.1965). I would find a significant difference between standing mute and acti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT