MacDonnel v. Com.

Decision Date09 November 1967
Citation353 Mass. 277,230 N.E.2d 821
PartiesWalter MacDONNEL v. COMMONWEALTH.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Ronald J. Chisholm, Boston, for petitioner.

Elliot L. Richardson, Atty. Gen., and Willie J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

This petition for a writ of error to reverse a conviction for drunkenness was reserved by the single justice without decision for the determination of the full court. The case is before us on the petition, assignments of error, answer, return, and a statement of agreed facts.

MacDonnel was arrested on February 7, 1966, charged with drunkenness. See G.L. c. 272, §§ 44, 45 (as amended through St.1959, c. 313, § 10), 46, 47 (as amended through St.1959, c. 313, § 11), and 48 (as amended through St.1956, c. 715, § 20). On the following day, he was found guilty in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston and given a six months sentence to the State Farm at Bridgewater. Sentence was suspended and MacDonnel was placed on probation for the duration of his sentence.

On May 23, 1966, MacDonnel was again arrested for drunkenness. Before the Municipal Court of the City of Boston on May 24, he pleaded guilty and the complaint was placed on file. The suspension of the February 8 sentence was revoked, however, and MacDonnel was committed to the State Farm. He has now been released from confinement under the sentence and brings this petition 'merely to clear the record.'

He was not at any time, either on February 8 or May 24, represented by counsel or advised of his right to have counsel. He did not waive counsel. The record does not show whether, on either date, MacDonnel was indigent.

MacDonnel assigns as error that he was improperly deprived of the right to counsel. See Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. He also contends that he was not advised of his right to counsel as required by S.J.C. Rule 3:10. 1

1. We view Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, as leaving unsettled whether, in all misdemeanor cases, advice concerning counsel and the appointment of counsel is constitutionally required. The Gideon case involved a non-capital felony, for which Gideon had been sentenced in a Florida court (p. 337, 83 S.Ct. 792) to serve a prison term of five years. Although the language of the principal opinion is broad, at least one concurring opinion recognized (p. 351, 83 S.Ct. 792) that the Supreme Court was not then called upon to decide whether the rule of the Gideon case 'should extend to all criminal cases.' Subsequent action by the Supreme Court may suggest that in misdemeanor cases, not carrying the possibility of a substantial prison sentence, the Gideon principle need not be applied. See Winters v. Beck, 239 Ark. 1151, 397 S.W.2d 364, cert. den. 385 U.S. 907, 87 S.Ct. 207, 17 L.Ed.2d 137; Cortinez v. Flournoy, Sheriff, 249 La. 742, 190 So.2d 909, cert. den. 385 U.S. 925, 87 S.Ct. 314, 17 L.Ed.2d 222. See also State v. DeJoseph, 3 Conn.Cir. 624, 222 A.2d 752; leave to appeal den. Conn.; a cert. den. 385 U.S. 982, 87 S.Ct. 526, 17 L.Ed.2d 443. In Creighton v. State of North Carolina, 257 F.Supp. 806, 809--810 (E.D.N.C.) a writ of habeas corpus was denied where the prisoner, without counsel, was sentenced to twelve months in jail for an attempted escape from jail, a misdemeanor. The escape itself would have been a felony. The court said 'that some misdemeanors involve punishment which results in a substantial deprivation of liberty * * * and, in such cases, counsel should be appointed to (represent) those unable to afford adequate representation.' It also recognized that some offences are 'so minor that due process does not and cannot require that the guiding hand of counsel be provided'. See Fish v. State, 159 So.2d 866, 868 (Fla.); State v. Bennett, 266 N.C. 755, 147 S.E.2d 237 (no requirement of counsel in minor misdemeanor, where small fine imposed); State v. Sherron, 268 N.C. 694, 696--697, 151 S.E.2d 599.

Other cases, however, interpret the Gideon decision as having application to misdemeanors. These cases reject the view that the Gideon rule extends only to serious offences, and hold that it applies even to minor misdemeanors where the penalty involves any considerable confinement. See Harvey v. State of Mississippi, 340 F.2d 263, 264, 271 (5th Cir., 'possession of whiskey', misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 and up to ninety days in jail); McDonald v. Moore, 353 F.2d 106, 109--110 (5th Cir., sentence of six months or $250 fine for liquor offences, on pleas of guilty without counsel or advice concerning right to counsel). See also Re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 329, 42 Cal.Rptr. 228, 398 P.2d 420 (right to counsel not limited in California to felonies but extends to misdemeanors and even to traffic cases where serious penalties are imposed); People v. Witenski, 15 N.Y.2d 392, 394--398, 259 N.Y.S.2d 413, 207 N.E.2d 358 (where defendants, sentenced to jail for fifty-five days for the theft of apples worth about $2, were held entitled to advice concerning counsel and appointment of counsel if indigent). Cf. People v. Letterio, 16 N.Y.2d 307, 266 N.Y.S.2d 368, 213 N.E.2d 670, where the court decided that persons charged with traffic offences were not entitled to counsel.

It is obvious that if constitutional provisions are to be interpreted as requiring (a) advice concerning counsel in a multitude of routine cases involving minor misdemeanors, and (b) the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in all such cases, there will be presented serious practical problems which may obstruct the orderly administration of criminal justice and impose unreasonable burdens upon the bar. This practical consideration must be given weight, not only in applying the Gideon case, but also in construing S.J.C. Rule 3:10. Unless the Supreme Court clearly extends the Gideon principles to cover all minor misdemeanors, we think that there remains an area of petty offences 2 within which judges in this Commonwealth, acting within constitutional limits, may exercise some discretion subject to rules promulgated by this court.

2. S.J.C. Rule 3:10 has broad application. Williams v. Commonwealth, 350 Mass. 732, 737, 216 N.E.2d 779; MULCAHY V. COMMONWEALTH, MASS., 227 N.E.2D 326.B It must be taken as meaning what it says. While in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1971
    ...385 U.S. 982, 87 S.Ct. 526, 17 L.Ed.2d 443 (1966); State v. Hayes, 261 N.C. 648, 135 S.E.2d 653, 654 (1964); Cf. MacDonnel v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 277, 230 N.E.2d 821 (1967); State v. Simmonds, 5 Conn.Cir. 178, 247 A.2d 502 In Plutshack the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered whether an i......
  • United States v. Curet
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • January 11, 2012
    ...v. Stroyny, 435 Mass. 635, 760 N.E.2d 1201, 1205 n. 1 (2002) (“Those guilty pleas were placed on file.”); MacDonnel v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 277, 230 N.E.2d 821, 822 (1967) (“[H]e pleaded guilty and the complaint was placed on file.”). Both the Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. Powell, 453 Ma......
  • Com. v. Barrett
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • January 23, 1975
    ...10 may represent the view of the Supreme Judicial Court as to the ultimate scope of the Gideon case (but see MacDonnel v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 277, 280, 230 N.E.2d 821 (1967)), is reinforced in Williams v. Commonwealth, 350 Mass. 732, 733--734, 216 N.E.2d 779 (1966), in which an indigent......
  • City of Cleveland v. Whipkey
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1972
    ...Harvey v. Mississippi (5th Cir. 1965), 340 F.2d 263; People v. Dupree (1969), 42 Ill.2d 249, 246 N.E.2d 281; MacDonnel v. Commonwealth (1967), 353 Mass. 277, 230 N.E.2d 821; People v. Letterio (1965), 16 N.Y.2d 307, 266 N.Y.S.2d 368, 213 N.E.2d 670; In re Johnson (1965), 62 Cal.2d 325, 42 C......
  • 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