Document: 535 U.S. 654 ALABAMAv.SHELTON. No. 00-1214. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued February 19, 2002. Decided May 20, CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA Defendant-respondent Shelton represented himself in an Alabama Circuit criminal trial. The court repeatedly warned about problems self-representation entailed, but at no time offered him assistance counsel state expense. He was convicted misdemeanor assault and sentenced to a 30-day jail term, which trial immediately suspended, placing on two years' unsupervised probation. reversed Shelton's suspended sentence, reasoning that this Court's decisions Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, Scott Illinois, 440 367, require provision any petty offense, misdemeanor, or felony prosecution, Argersinger, S., 37, "that actually leads imprisonment even for brief period," id., 33. State concluded, inter alia, because defendant may not be imprisoned absent counsel, sentence could never activated therefore invalid. Held: A "end up actual deprivation person's liberty" imposed unless accorded "the guiding hand counsel" prosecution crime charged. 40. Pp. 660-674. (a) controlling rule is "absent knowing intelligent waiver, person offense ... he by his trial." 37. 661-662. (b) Applying "actual imprisonment" rule, rejects argument its invited amicus curiae failure appoint indigent does bar imposition probationary upon conviction though might incarcerated event probation revoked. 662-672. (1) Sixth Amendment permit activation defendant's violation terms where did provide during imprisoned. prison term conviction. Once triggered, violation, underlying offense. uncounseled point "result[s] imprisonment," Nichols States, 511 738, 746; it "end[s] liberty," This precisely what Amendment, as interpreted Scott, allow. P. 662. (2) first grounds resists reasoning, i. e., amicus' attempt align case with Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778. Those do stand broad proposition sequential proceedings must analyzed separately purposes, right state-appointed triggered only result immediate imprisonment. dispositive factor whether incarceration occurred after some delay. Rather, critical had recognized when adjudicated guilty See Nichols, 743, n. 9. Here, revocation would trigger found without aid unquestioned. 747; Gagnon, 789. Far from supporting position, simply highlight inquiry trains stage corresponding trial, guilt adjudicated, eligibility established, determined. further distinguishable there applied less exacting standard allowing court, once has been increase based evidence conduct gave rise previous conviction, 748, if charged conduct, Williams New York, 337 241, acquitted appointed States Watts, 519 148, 157. That relaxed application here, question jailed credited reliable access counsel. 662-665. (3) Also unpersuasive contention practical considerations weigh against extension appointedcounsel situation. Based figures suggesting conditional sentences are commonly rarely activated, argues appropriate appointment all, stage, imminent. regime unduly reduce Amendment's domain. In Alabama, hearing informal proceeding, obligation observe customary rules evidence. More significant, challenge validity reliability so timed structured cannot compensate absence thereby bring within constitutional bounds. Nor agree holding will substantially limit States' ability impose Most jurisdictions already state-law more generous than afforded Federal Constitution, while simultaneously preserving option punishment. 748-749, 12. Even correct afford costs those have recourse pretrial probation, whereby prosecutor participation rehabilitation program, includes conditions typical post-trial adjudication occur breaches conditions. system reserves appointed-counsel requirement few cases proves necessary, see 784, respecting imperative 665-672. (c) Alabama's that, although bars Constitution prohibit, method effectuating punishment, can enforced. There much hint decision separable tethered. Absent prior presentation novel position now takes, passing instance. It consider before alone invalid, leaving freestanding independently effective. Hortonville Joint School Dist. 1 Ed. Assn., 426 482, 488. 672-674. Affirmed. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C. KENNEDY THOMAS, joined, post, p. 674. Bill Pryor, Attorney General argued cause petitioner. With briefs were Sandra Jean Stewart Stephanie N. Morman, Assistant Attorneys General. Charles Fried, invitation 534 987 (2001), opposition judgment below. William H. Mills respondent. Steven Duke National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers urging affirmance. Thomas F. Liotti David M. Porter.* JUSTICE GINSBURG Court. concerns punishable imprisonment, fine, both, courtappointed Two control judgment. First, 25 (1972), held defense "whether classified petty, felony," Later, 373-374 (1979), drew line need fined crime, 2 LeReed Shelton, third-degree assault, 30 days, years. presented delineated applies We hold 40 (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 * After representing bench District Etowah County, class carrying maximum punishment one year $2,000 Ala. Code §§ 13A-6-22, 13A-5-7(a)(1), 13A-5-12(a)(1) (1994). invoked new jury § 12-12-71 (1995), again appeared lawyer convicted. selfrepresentation App. 9, 4 serve days county prison. As authorized law, however, 15-22-50 placed conditioned payment costs, $500 reparations $25, restitution amount $516.69. 5 appealed grounds, Appeals affirmed.1 initially who receives remanded determination "made knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver right." 7. When returned remand, appeals course: "evidence record [defendant] deprived liberty." Id., 13. Because remained denied 14. 6 relevant part. Referring reasoned "sentenced high court's view, constitutes "term meaning inevitable. And constitutionally barred activating "`the threat itself hollow should considered nullity.'" 37 (quoting Reilley, 948 2d 648, (CA10 1991)). Accordingly, affirmed monetary portion invalidated aspect imposing time." By reversing informs us, also vacated two-year Brief Petitioner 6.2 7 Courts divided case. Some agreed below prerequisite sentence. See, e. g., 2d, 654; Foster, 904 21 (CA9 1990); White, 529 1390, 1394 (CA8 1976). Others rejected proposition. Cottle Wainwright, 477 269, 274 (CA5), other 414 895 (1973); Griswold Commonwealth, 252 Va. 113, 116-117, 472 E. 789, 791 (1996); Hansen, 273 Mont. 321, 325, 903 194, 197 (1995). granted certiorari resolve conflict. 532 1018 (2001). II 8 Three positions us receive waives Respondent 5-27.3 concedes maintains prohibit such Reply 4-13. To assure full airing presented, we (amicus) argue support third abandoned: Failure "does revoked." (2001).4 9 Gideon 372 335, 344-345 (1963), guarantee firmly established federal-court Johnson Zerbst, 304 458 (1938), prosecutions through Fourteenth Amendment. clarified scope imprisonment." Seven Terms later, confirmed Argersinger's "delimit[ation]," 373. Although governing statute year, 368, sole $50 "Even matter res nova," stated, central premise — penalty different kind fines mere eminently sound warrants adoption defining nonfelony cases. Ibid. Subsequent reiterated Argersinger-Scott standard. Glover 531 198, 203 (2001) ("any significance"); L. B. 102, 113 746 (1994) (constitutional "between resulted not"); 750 (SOUTER, concurring judgment) ("The relying Argersinger[,] bright between lesser penalties."); Lassiter Department Social Servs. Durham Cty., 452 18, 26 (1981). thus B 10 take asked address: Where provides defendant, probation? conclude not. 11 Amicus primarily grounds. attempts our 778 (1973). Curiae Invitation 11-18 (hereinafter Fried Brief). properly bracketed dispositions. 12 consideration determining subsequent 740. pleaded federal drug charges. Several years earlier, unrepresented driving under influence (DUI). Including DUI Sentencing Guidelines calculation allowed "25 months longer considered." 741. upheld result, concluding "an valid imposed, used enhance conviction." 749. pursuant armed robbery, due process representation hearing. 783. invariably required parole proceedings; directed, instead, "case-by-case approach" turning character issues involved. 788-791. 13 Considered together, contends, establish principle: Sequential 11-18, "result[ing] stateappointed (emphasis added). Thus, proceeding conclusion proceeding. DUI, later become invalid length followed separate Just contends: trial; proper predicates revoke 14, 23-24. 14 extract them. (absent absolute). Unlike case, convictions robbery 747 (relevant sentencing provisions punished last committed defendant," constitute "change earlier" misdemeanor); 789 (distinguishing accused prosecution" limited probationer parolee crime"). 15 neither nor altered diminished command "no trial," eligibity 16 related reason "less exacting" "consistent traditional understanding process." 747. noted courts into account "a convictions, [his] past behavior, behavior." accord process, "could severely rise" 748 added), 241 (1949), 157 (1997) (per curiam). counsel," 17 contends "practical clearly against" 23. cites they activated. 20-22; Tr. Oral Arg. 20-21 (speculating "hundreds thousands" defendants sentences, "thousands" large number violating their probation). these estimations, requiring every involving hamper effective "workable solution," 18 observes "now tool law enforcement low level cases." 22. so, follow preservation reduction domain hypothesizes. describe contours suggests, precede defendant. 24 (raising, endeavoring answer, several potential questions nature contemplates). currently doubt. "informal" one, Buckelew State, 48 418, 421, 265 So. 202, 205 (Crim. 1972), evidence, Martin 46 310, 311, 339, 340 1970). 19 issue apart determinations necessity confinement, 15-22-54(d)(4) (1975) breached Martin, App., 312, 341 ("All reasonably satisfy judge exercise discretion violated condition suspended." omitted)). beyond attack. Buckelew, ("a entertain collateral attack another circuit"). 20 think plain address key inquiry: sufficiently incarceration. Deprived tried, convicted, sentenced, unable original hearing, circumstances faces subjected crucible meaningful adversarial testing," Cronic, 466 656 (1984). countenance result. variation dissent review answering "plainly no" step deprive personal Post, 676. Only "ask procedural safeguards attending [Shelton's] comply Constitution." 22 Severing analysis manner makes little sense. One assess constitutionality walling off procedures activation. imagines set sufficient cure sentencing, including, perhaps, "complete retrial 677. But speculation procedures; decisional supra, 666 page, bear resemblance invents effort sanction prospect conviction.5 Assessing light circumstances, comprehend how fact bounds.6 23 "substantially states' ability" 22, encumber them "large, burden," 680. Constitution. All example, either received substantial fine7 offense8 provided year.9 scant believe conditioning affect existing practice majority States.10 given current commitment most affording misdemeanants share concern lack capacity resources same. Moreover, "some least [can]not bear" confirm today, 23, abandon equivalent measures viable forms attach unwilling routinely situation capable yielding similar employed form 1a-2a (collecting statutes). Under arrangement, program,11 then Ibid.; see, Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-56e (2001); Pa. Rules Crim. Proc. 310-320, 316 (2002) [pretrial rehabilitation] program respect crime."); Y. Law 170.55(3) (McKinney Supp. 2001) (pretrial "adjournment contemplation dismissal" "to certain specified conduct").12 Like urged amicus, "small percentage" 21, "supervise course rehabilitation" providing wishes pursue course, 784. respects C 27 results "for relates offense" "crosses `actual imprisonment'" Scott. Professor 8. imprisoned, acknowledges, "unless defense," 374; maintains, barrier enforced; urges reversal insofar ordered serve. 28 effect, invites regard independent same power enforce [as] fine." 6. emphasizes, squarely fine-only court-appointed 6; similarly, uncoupled Seen asserts, enforced, fine order could, contempt 11-12; 10-13; 29 describes envisions panoply process," including Any "postconviction wrongdoing," 11. "The faced $100 five days' (citing 12-11-30(5) (1995)), 658. hint, takes,13 resist Our resistance acting view instead heightened General's acknowledgment oral know imposes, postconviction, par unattached novelty State's marked unqualified statement opening "[b]y [Supreme Alabama] correspondingly term." 31 short, developed late litigation wrong forum. 488 (1976) ("We are, bound accept interpretation [the State's] highest State."). confine ruling made it: "[A] probated counsel." added); find infirmity holding. 32 33 Satisfied entitled innocence decided vulnerability determined, affirm Alabama. 34 ordered. Notes: ofamici Texas et al. John Cornyn, Texas, Gregory Coleman, Solicitor General, Kyle Duncan, Carter G. Phillips, Gene Schaerr, Paul J. Zidlicky, Rebecca K. Smith, respective follows: Jane Brady Delaware, Richard Ieyoub Louisiana, Mike McGrath Montana, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Betty D. Montgomery Ohio, Randolph A. Beales Virginia. all challenges, procedurally defaulted court. 14-25. On challenge, proceedings,id., ruled 29. Justice Maddox dissented, stating "received incarcerated." 41. construed establishing enjoyedIbid. overruleArgersinger 367 extent "in penalty." 27-31. contention, raised merits. "We normally expect notice intent make far-reaching respondent's petition certiorari, cf. Rule 15.2, assuring adequate preparation likely affected wishing participate." South Central Bell Telephone Co. 526 160, 171 (1999). member Bar accepted well fulfilled assigned responsibility event, incorrect today effectively "deprive[s] th[e] option" verdict following trialde novo. functional infra, 670-672, Regarding dissent's suggestion "means retesting (with counsel) conviction" suffice, 678, 3, doubt "[would] help die usually cast entered record." 41 (BURGER, result). place police justice record. Without drastic change courts, way" demonstrate error reconstruct lost intervening period. here decide "short complete retrial" 678; minimal plainly insufficient. Charging "miraculously divined justices question,"post, 676, forgets writ violates spoken address, doing expressed slightest revocation-stage real imaginary calculus. Ann. 2A:158A-5.2 (1985);State Hermanns, 278 Super. 29, 650 360, 366 (1994); 7A-451(a)(1) (1999); Vt. Ann., Tit. 13, 5201 (1998). SeeAlexander Anchorage, 490 910, 913 (Alaska 1971) (interpreting Alaska Const., Art. I, 11, involve incarceration); Tracy Municipal Glendale Judicial Dist., Cal. 3d 760, 766, 587 227, 230 (1978) (Cal. Penal 686 (West 1985) affords defendants); Del. 4602 (1997); 11-2602 2001); Haw. Rev. 802-1 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, 113-3 (1992); Brunson 182 Ind. 146, 149, 394 229, 231 (1979) (right guaranteed 13); Ky. 31.100(4)(b), 31.110(1) 1999); La. 13; Mass. Minn. 5.02(1) Neb. 29-3902 (1995); 170.10(3)(c) 1993); Okla. 1355.6.A 2002); Ore. 135.050(4) (Supp. 1998); Tenn. Sup. Ct. 13(d)(1) Tex. 26.04(b)(3) (Vernon 19.2-159, 19.2-160 (2000); Wash. 3.1(a) (2002); W. 50-4-3 Wis. 967.06 (1998); Wyo. 7-6-102 Idaho 19-851(d)(2), 19-852(a)(1) Iowa (2002);Wright Denato, 178 341-342 (Iowa 1970); Md. Code, 27A, 2(h)(2), 4(b)(2) (1997 2000); Nev. 178.397, 193.120 604-A:2(I), 625:9(IV)(a)(1) 31-16-2(D), 31-16-3(A) Ohio 2(C), 44(A) 122(A) Cons. 106(c)(2) Codified Laws 23A-40-6, 23-40-6.1, 22-6-2(1) 51-296(a) (imposition "suspended period probation" necessitates counsel). ten hardly supports dire predictions consequences today's decision, seepost, 679-681, 4. allow misdemeanors quite narrow. Pennsylvania, enjoy regardless 122(B) "summary offenses" (violations technically crimes 90 (1998)) uncounseled. Commonwealth Thomas, 510 106, 111, 7, 507 57, 59, (1986). (Typical Pennsylvania include return library book 6708 (1998), fishing Sunday, 2104 (1998).) Gaps extend protection similarly slight. 23A-40-6.1, 22-6-2(2) (1998) (defendant enjoys absolute imprisonment); 2002) (counsel except tried knows imprisonment). think, like arising out fistfight minor traffic accident, 15, 2. "quite irrelevant," 679, attorney strongly suggests added prove onerous. device consent, raise restrains liberty asAmicus 8; 13-16. significant difference "sensible dissent,i. terms, Pretrial expensive: permits single whereas requires (without second Not until reply convey comprehendsArgersinger "there possibility probation." Before coincided amicus. Argument Petition Writ Certiorari Appeals, 31, Support Application Rehearing, 1990031 (Ala. Ct.), 32. 35 whom CHIEF JUSTICE, KENNEDY, THOMAS join, dissenting. 36 (Emphasis added.) Although, said, "run affected" end liberty, benefit" drawing imprisonment: "[T]he 373 emphasized touchstone entitlement significance" added)); (1996) ("right [to counsel] trials imposed" (1981) (the "has refused which, criminal, loss added)). Today's ignores long consistent jurisprudence, extending bearing Respondent's accompanying 2-year respondent suffered, suffer, liberty. holds "may `end [respondent's] liberty,'" ante, 658 someday determines merits 15-22-54(d)(1) "adequately protect community activity" "avoid depreciating seriousness violation," 15-22-54(d)(4). contingencies yet added, sense, element rank speculation. Should occur, speculates, mechanically apply applicable routine (which establishes finds inadequate) rather adopt special situations Ante, 666-668. miraculously question.1 38 business offering advisory answer. "imposition invoke[s] Pet. Cert. Since answer no. future, seeks imprison previously ask now. Given longstanding refusal opinions, Hayburn's Case, Dall. 409 (1792), particularly (as seek avoid non-advisory Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring)), I am amazed "makes sense" misdemeanants) "procedures activation"). 667. 39 purports offer "minimal procedures" hearings, 668, 5, text repudiates limitation. permit[s] states qualification "it not." says "doubt[s]" reimposition Amendment," using euphemism certitude. basis, moreover, "doubt." Surely required, request, option?2 sensible option, since induced send jail, expense rare, counseled retrials possible cases, short suffice.3 opinions considerable weight expanding (any "impose unpredictable, necessarily substantial, 50 diverse States"); 56-62 (Powell, result) (same). Today, gives back hand. Its observation "[a]ll States" respondent, 669, interesting irrelevant, confined Appointed henceforth awarded short. announced scope.4 imposes large, burden poorest (e. Arkansas, Mississippi, Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Statistical Abstract (2001)). consists cost state-paid insignificance financially prosperous sometimes forgo hired counsel; enabling prosecutors respond "over-lawyering" 58-59 discount minority counsel: keep disposition forever place, however imprudent experience be. 42 justification settled practices people, jurisprudence respectfully dissent. resolved question, since, finding "expressed revocationstage calculus."Ante, Indeed not, error. (because consider) asserts permits, "functional equivalent" basis forcing employ other. nothing implausible "yiel[d] result,"ante, 671. certainly curious coincidence, inasmuch purpose conserving prosecutorial judicial forgoing 3a Justice, Attorneys' Manual 9-22.000 (1988); Abadinsky, Probation Parole: Theory Practice 348-349 (3d ed. 1987) programs "use arrest means identifying treatment or, least, prosecution"). generally available offenses, 1a, Alabama) 3a. If thesis true, both major of, addition to, quotes Chief Burger's concurrence inArgersinger "doubt `[would] defendant,' `the record.' 41." 5. passage addressing benefits "[a]ppeal doubtless uniformly restricted appellate review. sense transfer Justice's unknown unknowable proceedings, various notes "large record," making difficult proceeding." entirely irrelevant convictions" courts. What matters (a presumably small fraction convictions). information present shows comb substantive inadequacy. record; subsequently exercised right, de novo higher Ex parte Maye, 799 944, 947 2001). Ten thirty-four cited suffer Six isat three six months' 19-852(a) (1948-1997); Hardman, 120 667, 669-670, 818 782, 784-785 (App. 1991); (1957-1997); 31-16-2, 31-16-3 Woodruff, 124 388, 396, 951 605, 613, 106(c) 122(A), (B) Dakota permissible 22-6-2 concluded defendant] convicted," 23A-40-6.1. Texas's declares "charged confinement," 2002), "when Fortner 764 934, 935 (Tex. 1989) assures resulting Finally, "likely" likelihood qualifies, phrased statutes supra probably (1985); Rodriguez Rosenblatt, 58 281, 295, 277 216, 223 (1971); McCoy, 363, 370, 283 788, 791-792 Columbia numbered among whose decision. guarantees "all discarding brings prescription. "circumstances [they] narrow." 670, narrowness range covered suspended-sentence covered. Misdemeanors narrow category, vast (precisely offense) imposed. belief offenders prosecuted provided. minimizes observing failing Sunday. first-offense retail theft, license, harassment assault). 109, 58; 75 1543(b)(1) 2709(a), (c)(1) (2000). Over uninformed intuition, exceptions calls "narrow," affirming adopted "significant burdens States." Virginia Amici

Category: 0