Document: 335 U.S. 437 69 S.Ct. 184 93 L.Ed. 127 UVEGESv.COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 75. Argued Nov. 16, 17, 1948. Decided Dec. 13, Mr. Albert A. Fiok, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. William S. Rahauser, respondent. Justice REED delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner is held by Commonwealth Pennsylvania in Western State Penitentiary on sentences totalling a minimum twenty and maximum forty years pronounced pursuant to his pleas guilty four indictments charging burglary. We granted certiorari, 334 836, 68 1489, review denial Supreme Court petition appeal from judgment Superior which affirmed dismissal habeas corpus Common Pleas Allegheny County. claimed state courts, now claims here, that he was denied counsel proceedings leading convictions violation right under due process l w clause Fourteenth Amendment. 2 From pleadings decisions certified us as record Pennsylvania, without reliance upon any additional allegations facts constitutional rights may be summarized follows: On October 27, 1938, petitioner Uveges, youth seventeen age, faced with district attorney's separate burglaries. Upon plea these indictments, Uveges sentenced County five ten each indictment, run consecutively. In same court writ 1946, alleged not informed nor offered him at time during period between arrest conviction. He also 'frightened threats dire consequences if dared stand trial, relator pleaded direction an assistant attorney, understanding sentence Huntington Reformatory would imposed.' disregard this last allegation because it presented allowance appeal. A rule show cause why should issue granted. The answer entitled but did deny attorney. Pleas, hearing, entered order dismissing denying writ. affirmed, 161 Pa.Super. 58, 53 A.2d 894, noting had been arrested once before burglary confined reformatory months. Court, September 29, 1947, repeated counsel. 894. think adequately raised federal question makes no contrary contention.1 motion proceed forma pauperis 1489 examine important petitioner's claim counsel.2 3 Since our available accused whose has denied,3 d since respondent does suggest bars remedy circumstances case taken original conviction, we merits controversy. 4 Some members where serious offenses are charged, failure offer criminal trials deprives They convinced services protect guaranted Constitution every such instance. See Bute v. People Illinois, 333 640, dissent, 677—679, 763, 782, 783. Only when refuses can dispense counsel.4 Others crime subject capital punishment involved, depends its own facts. Betts Brady, 316 455, 462, 62 1252, 1256, 86 1595. Where gravity other factors—such age education defendant,5 conduct or prosecuting officials,6 complicated nature offense charged possible defenses thereto7—render so apt result injustice fundamentally unfair, latter group must have legal assistance Amendment whether pleads elects requests not. waiver counsel, understandingly made, justifies trial 5 philosophy behind both views Fifth requires all persons crimes, necessary their adequate defense, advised how trial. application varies indicated preceding paragraph. 6 Under either view requirements process, required presence permitted plead advice situation. If true, adviser help handle problems. young inexperienced intricacies procedure crimes carried eighty years.8 There undenied never shows attempt part make understand plea. Whatever decision might conscientiously undertaken perform functions ordinarily entrusted conclude opportunity element fair hearing. 7 Reversed. 8 FRANKFURTER, whom JACKSON BURTON concur, dissenting. 9 Exercise Court's jurisdiction peculiarly determination, neither conceded withheld counsel's admission. fact, however, admit adjudication revewable here. It urges 'under properly Court' fail. reversing distribution judicial power highest courts States, I am constrained dissent. 10 As caption announces, brought here certiorari directed Pennsylvania. issued solely basis certiorari. sum, were allegations: (1) two weeks being able consult friends relatives; (2) youth, ignorance complexity charges against him, incapable meeting them intelligently counsel; (3) request aid determine met threat severe put expense trial; (4) promised District Attorney short guilty; (5) guilty, unaware effect, intended only one several indictments. 11 allegations, more, June 7, affirming refusal corpus, Not until 8, 1948, sent Pennsylvania; lodged 20, appears paper filed law entertained. More particularly, above Apart involving matters local procedure, ground sought bare unsupported those considerations unfairness rulings, guaranteed 12 Having action holds flouted United States. despite fact bar representative unreservedly admitted dismissed made there. reviewing what did. matter disallowance was, law, authorized disallow formulated particularity, wanting writ, proper foundation, e dismissed. new proceeding appropriate successfully sustained, gives warrant assuming transmute into claim. 13 This assumption. decide case, however grave issue, according record, there finding anything even assume, although nothing affords do so,1 records lower disallowed Appellants often raise they urged court, sometimes first appellate court. event, ran turns out formally misdirected up lodged, rather than another. reviewed misdirection, reviewed. runs get presents quite different cannot County, final involved issue. For purpose 'finality,' go obligatory it. Pa.Stat.Ann., tit. § 190; Caulfield, 211 Pa. 644, 61 243; see Gardner, 297 498, 500, 147 527. bringing governed rely 14 Unless ass me flagrantly violated duty grant secured States raised, attribute non-constitutional reasonably attributed. said explicitly more particularized statement full doing assign wise handicapped pleading hardly find precludes requirement particularity effort set aside eight after imposed. determination explicity question, infer implicit ruling That dispose cases summarily plainly calls inference acted. comparison statements appeal, compelling reason attributing lack sufficient call merits. tabular pressed clearly establishes very courts.* disregarded like game blindman's buff. 15 fairly sustained present interpret Klinger Missouri, Wall. 257, 263, 20 635; Lynch New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 52, 54, 55 79 191; Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Oklahoma, 303 206, 212, 58 528, 530, 82 751. Our course excogitating some fanciful recondite doctrine decision. Here obvious. To reject reach fully aware indigent defendCLAIMS MADE IN THE VARIOUS COURTS II III IV 16 17 18 Petition 19 Bare Same.1 Failure 21 resulted 22 unfair 23 disabled 24 making 25 intelligent 26 led 27 overreaching D. Signature2 Same.2 denied2 Signature 28 lacking signed indictment. 29 indictment waiver. 30 31 grand jury 32 presentation. Claims 33 read 34 him. Right of3 Apparently3 No such3 Same 35 17-year-old 3, Column 1. 36 boy 37 disaffirm 38 39 guilt. Also 40 41 42 promise 43 shorter 44 sentence. to4 Same.4 Same. 45 46 47 48 49 nine 50 Held incommunicado weeks. Refusal 51 52 consultation 54 followed threats. Witnesses 56 sworn. 57 ants e.g. McGlinn Smith, 344 41, heedless assume heedlessness enforced allowable asserting Such reasoning invidiously called legalistic. Law essentially legalistic sense observance wellrecognized is, balance, socially desirable. well-being federalism ours casual appear sterile technicality whenever potential conflict courts. Especially vast reaches exclusively within domain, therefore supervision exercise over Of alertness safeguarding infringement difficult task repressing dealing transgressors. At best, intervention delicate business. indulged unless reasonable doubt left denies, refused exercise, means correcting infraction Constitution. 59 Intervention administration justice disadvantages interference without. short-cut relief particular calculated beget misunderstanding friction extent detracts imponderables ultimate civilized system law. After all, Nation's tribunal, super-legal-aid bureau. relief, tedious through State's selfcorrective enlists support community. Considerations rooted psychological sociological underlie abstention upsetting writs attributed founded When rests easy sailing. But disposes spelling ground, so, many cases, burden docket, flouting regard inadequacy mode presenting 60 dismiss leaving pursue Excerpts brief acceptance actual issue: '3. basic appoint Counsel represent imprisonment. contention require '(A) 6th Federal represented apply states '(B) special 14th accused.' 'The vital decided, and, significant accused, confinement deemed process.' bases caim procedural irregularities allegedly statutes, attorney personally sign considered them. 47, 48, 1; Penland Ashe, 341 337, 341, 342, 464. Rice Olson, 324 786, 788, 789, 65 989 991, 89 1367; Walker Johnston, 312 275, 286, 574, 579, 85 830; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 468, 1019, 1024, 1461, 146 A.L.R. 357. e.g., Wade Mayo, 672, 683, 684, 1270, 1275, 1276; DeMeerleer Michigan, 329 663, 664, 665, 67 596, 597, 81 584; supra, page 472, 1261, 1595; Powell Alabama, 287 45, 51, 71, 55, 57, 65, 77 158, 84 Townsend Burke, 736, 739, 741, 1254, 1255; Smith O'Grady, 329, 332, 333, 572, 573, 859. 789—791, 989, 1367. Purdon's 18, 4901. relevant docket entries three strongly indicate papers determining 'Docket Entries' July twelve days Record remitted Pleas. court's 'Appearance Docket Entry' received day. Twenty-four later, August 22, Entries previously back 'Praecipe' Clerk requesting Although done Clerk's signature 'the foregoing * true faithful copy Proceedings certain suit therein pending *' it, supplemental obtain Record. [See table next page.]

Category: 0