Document: 348 U.S. 3 75 S.Ct. 1 99 L.Ed. 4 William C. CHANDLER, Petitioner,v.FRETAG, Warden. No. 39. Argued Oct. 18, 1954. Decided Nov. 8, Mr.Earl E. Leming, Knoxville, Tenn., for petitioner. Mr.Knox Bigham, Nashville, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. Petitioner is held in custody respondent, Warden Tennessee State Penitentiary, under a sentence life imprisonment as an habitual criminal. Challenging validity that Fourteenth Amendment, he commenced this action courts to obtain his freedom. We granted certiorari, 347 933, 74 632, because substantial question presented by constitutional claim. 2 The basic facts are undisputed. middle-aged Negro little education. He was indicted on March 10, 1949, offense housebreaking and larceny, punishable term three ten years. indictment charged him with breaking entering business house stealing therefrom sundry items aggregate value $3. Following arrest, petitioner released bond while awaiting trial set May 17, 1949. On day, without attorney notice any criminal accusation against him, appeared court intending plead guilty indictment. 'felt could do no good said charge (housebreaking larceny).' When case called trial, orally advised judge would also be tried alleged prior felonies.1 informed conviction Habitual Criminal Act carries mandatory possibility parole.2 promptly asked continuance enable counsel accusation. His request summarily denied, jury impaneld, proceeded immediately trial. entered plea larceny charge, prosecution introduced evidence corroboration plea. At conclusion instructed raise their right hands if they accepted petitioner's approved three-year charge. responded raising hands. then second time found Once again jury, ever having left box, raised entire proceeding—from impaneling passing sentence—consumed between five minutes. Three years later, served applied Circuit Court Knox County habeas corpus relief.3 invalid ground, among others, had been denied opportunity defense.4 hearing application, petitioner, wife, brother, juror, prosecuting testified recollection trial.5 All witnesses were full accord above-stated facts. They differed only whether pleaded concerning convictions. attorney, witness state, well record convictions read jury; other four it. In all respects, testimony substantiated witnesses. Thus conceded not represented counsel, given pretrial accusation, 'said wanted put off being addition larceny. so get lawyer (the judge) told since January up lawyer.' Court, after merits, accepted—as does respondent here—petitioner's factual allegations denial counsel. nevertheless upheld Supreme affirmed. Both emphasized Act, like similar legislation states, create separate but enhances defendant's punishment convicted fourth felony. Tipton v. State, 160 Tenn. 664, 672—678, 28 S.W.2d 635, 637—639. See McDonald Commonwealth Massachusetts, 180 311, 313, 21 389, 390, 45 542; Graham West Virginia, 224 616, 623—624, 32 583, 585, 56 917. From premise, below reasoned waived waiving With conclusion, we cannot agree. 5 Section defines 'habitual criminal' considerable detail.6 7 prescribes standards admissibility defendant criminal.7 This Section, has held, clearly authorizes '(a)n issue fact verity such or identity accused person named * *.' 678, 639. Proof '* condition precedent imposition increased provided.' supra. 6 moreover, provides imposed unless specially finds charged.8 'Under section Act', according 'the one decide.' McCommings 175 309, 134 151, 152. short, even though offense, its applicability must determined judicial hearing. Compare Williams People New York, 337 241, 69 1079, 93 1337. That felony although may conducted single proceeding, essentially independent each other.9 Thus, example, it possible instant might have yet innocent Apparently recognizing possibility, at earliest moment affirmatively sought Immediately suddenly finding himself danger imprisonment, requested engage services attorney; refused forced stand immediate these undisputed facts, clear beyond did waive Rice Olson, 324 786, 788 789, 65 989, 990—991, 89 1367. Attorney General denies, however, federal relies doctrine enunciated Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 1252, 86 1595. But application here. ask furnish counsel; rather, own. distinction established Court's decisions. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 71, 53 55, 65, 77 158; 466, 468, 1258, 1259, 1595; House Mayo, 42, 46, 517, 520, 739. Regardless entitled appointment heard through own unqualified.10 Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 324—325, 58 149, 82 288. As stated over 20 ago supra, pages 68—69, page 64: 'What, then, include? Historically practice, our country least, always included aid when desired provided party asserting right. be, many cases, avail comprehend Even intelligent educated layman small sometimes skill science law. If crime, incapable, generally, determining bad. unfamiliar rules evidence. Left proper upon incompetent evidence, irrelevant otherwise inadmissible. lacks both knowledge adequately prepare defense, perfect one. requires guiding hand every step proceedings him. Without it, guilty, faces know how establish innocence. true men intelligence, much more ignorant illiterate, those feeble intellect. case, civil criminal, state arbitrarily refuse hear employed appearing reasonably doubted refusal hearing, and, therefore, due process sense.' (Italics added.) 8 A necessary corollary reasonable employ consult otherwise, worth. Avery 308 444, 446, 60 321, 322, 84 377; 739; White Ragen, 760, 764, 978, 980, 1348; Hawk 326 271, 277—278, 66 116, 119—120, 90 61. By denying whatever deprived law guaranteed Amendment. 9 It follows sentence. judgment below, sustaining relief, accordingly reversed. 10 Judgment permitted oral Williams' Tenn.Code, 1934 (1949 Supp.), § 11863.5. subsequently amended require inclusion substantive offense. 1932 (1950 11863.2. Under law, sentenced serve before can attack proceedings. ex rel. Grandstaff Gore, 182 94, 98, 184 366, 367. alleged, wholly apart from claim failure give find unnecessary pass contention view disposition case. note 1950, subsequent notice. consists conviction. There stenographic transcript recites 'counsel present,' recital true. 11863.1: 'Any who either times within felonies, two which, 11762 Code Tennessee, rendered infamous, which sections 10777, 10778, 10788, 10790 10797 Code, murder first degree, rape, kidnapping ransom, treason crime death existing laws, penalty inflicted, laws government crimes, committed shall considered, purposes act, hereby declared petit counted convictions, expressly excluded, further offenses, different times, occasions.' 11863.7. Compare, e.g., Virginia procedure issue. statutes appear confer rights 1932, §§ 11733, 11734, 11547, 11548. Art. 1, 9, Declaration Rights Constitution.

Category: 0