Opinion ID: 2116333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: The question before this court is, What is the proper remedy when a defendant is imprisoned for a misdemeanor offense following conviction without the assistance of counsel? We determine that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, mandates a reversal of such conviction. The Sixth Amendment provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at trial in state courts for felony offenses and for lesser offenses when the defendant is sentenced to confinement. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (felony offenses); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972) (any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, for which imprisonment is imposed). The imprisonment standard in Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra , was further clarified in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979), wherein the Court affirmed a defendant's uncounselled misdemeanor conviction for which no imprisonment had been imposed. The Court stated that the central premise of Argersinger that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or the mere threat of imprisonmentis eminently sound and warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel. (Emphasis supplied.) 440 U.S. at 373, 99 S.Ct. 1158. Because Stott was actually imprisoned for this conviction, it is clear that she had a right to the assistance of counsel at her trial. It is irrelevant that Stott would have had no such right at the same trial, for the same offense, had she not been imprisoned. Stott's right to counsel was implicated with the closing of her cell door, and her conviction was therefore obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The remedy for this violation is equally clear. In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), the Court held that a conviction obtained in violation of a defendant's right to counsel at trial is void. That Court stated: Since the Sixth Amendment constitutionally entitles one charged with crime to the assistance of counsel, compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty. When this right is properly waived, the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to conviction and sentence. If the accused, however, is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his life or his liberty. A court's jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the course of the proceedings due to failure to complete the courtas the Sixth Amendment requiresby providing counsel for an accused who is unable to obtain counsel, who has not intelligently waived this constitutional guaranty, and whose life or liberty is at stake. If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. 304 U.S. at 467-68, 58 S.Ct. 1019. The Court concluded that depriving a defendant of the right to counsel at trial renders the trial `absolutely void.' 304 U.S. at 468, 58 S.Ct. 1019. Gideon v. Wainwright, supra ; Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra ; and Scott v. Illinois, supra , did not alter the consequences of violating a defendant's right to counsel, but, rather, delineated when that right to counsel exists. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that it is not just the sentence but the conviction itself that is void if the right to counsel is violated in a state court: In [ Gideon v. Wainwright, supra ] the Court unanimously announced a clear and simple constitutional rule: In the absence of waiver, a felony conviction is invalid if it was obtained in a court that denied the defendant the help of a lawyer. (Emphasis supplied.) Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473, 481, 92 S.Ct. 1014, 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972). It follows under Scott v. Illinois, supra , that a misdemeanor conviction resulting in imprisonment is equally invalid if similarly obtained. See, Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994) (holding that conviction invalid under Scott v. Illinois, supra , may not be used for enhancing sentence for later offense); U.S. v. Eckford, 910 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.1990) (if uncounselled defendant is sentenced to prison, conviction itself is unconstitutional). As that is exactly what occurred in this case, Stott's conviction must be reversed.