Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel. Jon Richard ARGERSINGER, Petitioner, v. Raymond HAMLIN, Sheriff Leon County, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1970-06-03
Citations: 236 So. 2d 442
Docket Number: No. 39309
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. Jon Richard ARGERSINGER, Petitioner, v. Raymond HAMLIN, Sheriff Leon County, Respondent.
Judges: DREW, THORNAL and CARLTON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 236
Pages: 442–446

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel. Jon Richard ARGERSINGER, Petitioner, v. Raymond HAMLIN, Sheriff Leon County, Respondent.
No. 39309.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 3, 1970.
Rehearing Denied July 7, 1970.
J. Michael Shea, Tampa, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Phillip A. Hubbart, Miami, Ronald K. Cacciatore, Tampa, and Roy T. Rhodes, of Horne, Rhodes, Brown & Stephens, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar.
Ralph A. Marsicano, Tampa, for Florida League of Municipalities.
Bruce S. Rogow, Miami, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
ROBERTS, Justice.
We have taken original jurisdiction of this habeas corpus proceeding to reexamine our previous decisions in Fish v. State, Fla.1964, 159 So.2d 866, Watkins v. Morris, Fla. 1965, 179 So.2d 348, and State ex rel. Taylor v. Warden, Fla.1967, 193 So.2d 606, holding that an indigent defendant is not entitled to court-appointed counsel when accused only of a misdemeanor. It is noteworthy that, since our decision in Fish, the United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in three cases involving a denial of counsel in misdemeanor cases: Winters v. Beck, 385 U.S. 907, 87 S.Ct. 207, 17 L.Ed.2d 137 (1966); DeJoseph v. Connecticut, 385 U.S. 982, 87 S.Ct. 526, 17 L.Ed.2d 443 (1966); and Heller v. Connecticut, 389 U.S. 902, 88 S.Ct. 213, 19 L. Ed.2d 679 (1967). And we are by no means persuaded that the position we took in Fish, and the reasoning upon which it was based, are no longer valid.
But our conclusion in this respect does nothing to extricate the trial courts of this state from the horns of the dilemma in which they now find themselves. On the one hand is the decision of this court in Fish affirming a lower court which had denied a court-appointed counsel to indigent misdemeanants; and on the other hand are the Fifth Circuit federal courts — both trial and appellate — that with the aid of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and the writ of habeas corpus are coercing our state courts in decisions that are as distinguished for their lack of uniformity as for their lack of sound precedent, insofar as the applicability of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1962) to state trials of misdemeanor charges are concerned.
In this confusing situation we feel that we have no alternative but to adopt the decision of the federal court of this judicial circuit that we feel most nearly approximates any decision in this respect that might be adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Assuming arguendo that that Court will eventually decide that Gideon should be extended to include misdemeanor trials, it is fair to presume that it would apply to the right-to-counsel rule the same principles applicable to a determination of the right to a jury trial, namely, that this right extends only to trials for non-petty offenses punishable by more than six months imprisonment. See Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 1503, 23 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed. 2d 491 (1968); Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968); and Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L.Ed.2d 629 (1966).
This is the standard adopted in Brinson v. State, S.D.Fla.1967, 273 F.Supp. 840, in which the U. S. District Court, speaking through Judge Mehrtens, pointed out that "the 'absolute right' to counsel in all criminal prosecutions must be qualified by practical exigencies and, unless this is done, the necessities of sound judicial administration would be disregarded and the administration of justice thrown into senseless chaos." Judge Mehrtens noted also that the blanket application of the rule to all misdemeanor cases "could lead to the appointment of counsel for misdemeanors not normally considered criminal, such as over-parking and other petty traffic offenses, jaywalking, dropping trash upon the sidewalk, and like offenses."
To Judge Mehrtens' observations we might add that misdemeanors are usually associated with trivial offenses described as malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, as are most felonies. Misdemeanors have none of the sanctions in addition to fine or imprisonment associated with felonies. A conviction of a felony is punished not only by imprisonment but also by the forfeiture of civil rights, such as the right to vote, to serve on a jury, and to hold public office, see Marsh v. Garwood, Fla. 1953, 65 So.2d 15, 19; and not infrequently such a conviction will prove to be an insurmountable barrier to desirable employment.
Thus, the two classes of offenses are widely separated in type, kind, punishment and effect; and even though the basic and fundamental "due process" right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment must be held to include the Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel in felony cases as was held in Gideon, supra, it does not necessarily follow that this Sixth-Fourteenth tandem can reach down into the lowest echelons of petty offenders and hand out to them the free services of an elaborate and expensive public-defender system to defend them against charges of overparking or other petty offenses. In the words of Judge Mehrtens in Brinson, supra, "[t]he demands upon the bench and bar would be staggering and well-nigh impossible."
In these circumstances, and pending a definitive decision of the United States Supreme Court on the subject, we adopt the reasoning and the conclusion of the Brinson case, supra, and hold that an indigent defendant accused of a misdemeanor is entitled to court-appointed counsel only when the offense carries a possible penalty of more than six months imprisonment; and insofar as Fish and the other cases cited above are in conflict herewith, we hereby recede therefrom.
We are indebted to learned counsel for the briefs and oral arguments presented on behalf of The Florida Bar, The Florida League of Municipalities, the Economic Opportunity Legal Services Program of Dade County, Inc., and, especially, the exhaustive briefs filed on behalf of the State of Florida — all of which have been enlightening and educative and have greatly lessened our labors.
Since it affirmatively appears in the record that the maximum term of imprisonment provided by statute for the offense charged against petitioner was six months, and that he was actually sentenced to three months, it has not been made to appear that petitioner was entitled to counsel. Accordingly, the writ heretofore issued should be and it is hereby
Discharged.
DREW, THORNAL and CARLTON, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with Opinion.
ERVIN, C. J., and ADKINS, J., concur with BOYD, J.