Document: 404 U.S. 443 92 S.Ct. 589 30 L.Ed.2d 592 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Forrest S. TUCKER. No. 70—86. Argued Nov. 11, 1971. Decided Jan. 1972. Syllabus In imposing sentence upon a defendant convicted of bank robbery, federal district judge gave explicit consideration to the defendant's record previous convictions. It was later conclusively determined that two convictions were constitutionally invalid, having been obtained in violation Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 9 799. Held: Under these circumstances Court Appeals correct remanding case District for reconsideration imposed defendant. Pp. 446—449. 431 F.2d 1292, affirmed. Allan A. Tuttle, Raleigh, N.C., petitioner. William Reppy, Jr., Durham, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 1953 respondent, Forrest Tucker, brought trial court California charge armed robbery. He pleaded not guilty. For female employees called as witnesses prosecution, and they identified respondent robber. testified his own behalf, denying participation robbery offering an alibi defense. To impeach credibility testimony, prosecution permitted on cross-examination ask him whether he had previously any felonies. acknowledged three felony convictions, one Florida 1938, another Louisiana 1946, third 1950. At conclusion jury returned verdict ensuing sentencing proceeding Judge conducted inquiry into respondent's background, and, shows, attention acknowledged.1 The then sentenced serve 25 years prison—the maximum term authorized by applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). 2 Several it 1938 conviction 1946 invalid. This determination made Superior Alameda County, California, court's finding collateral those resulted from proceedings which unrepresented counsel, 'neither advised right legal assistance nor did intelligently understandingly waive this counsel.'2 3 Thereafter initiated present litigation. Proceeding under 28 2255, filed motion Federal 1953, claiming introduction at evidence prior invalid fatally tainted jury's guilt. Upon motion, agreed 'the use impeachment purposes error,' but found error harmless beyond reasonable doubt, view overwhelming guilty Tucker United States, D.C., 299 F.Supp. 1376. See Chapman 386 18, 87 824, 17 705; Harrington 395 250, 89 1726, 23 284. 4 On appeal, Ninth Circuit 'firmly proved contribute that, with respect guilty, receiving such therefore doubt.' went on, however, find there 'a probability defective may have led impose heavier prison than otherwise would imposed.' Accordingly, appellate affirmed refusal vacate conviction, remanded resentencing 'without are 799.' 1293, 1294. Government came here petition writ certiorari, we granted. 402 942, 91 1616, 29 110. 5 government asks us reverse judgment insofar resentencing. argues has wide largely unreviewable discretion sentence, exercising relevant is formally past crimes, what extent fact engaged criminal or antisocial conduct. Further, argues, other detrimental information about possessed time judge, highly unlikely different even if known concludes now remand 'artificial' 'unrealistic' burden 6 surely true, asserts, judicial system generally determining impose. also true before making determination, appropriately conduct broad scope, unlimited either kind consider, source come. States Trigg, 7 Cir., 392 860, 864; Davis 376 535, 538; Cross 122 U.S.App.D.C. 380, 382, 354 512, 514; Doyle, 348 715, 721; Magliano, 336 817, 822; Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 32(a)(2). Williams New York, 337 241, 69 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337; North Carolina Pearce, 711, 723, 2072, 2079, 656. solid ground asserting within statutory limits, subject review. Gore 357 386, 393, 78 1280, 1284, 1405. Cf. Yates 356 363, 766, 837. But general propositions do decide us. deal here, informed founded least part misinformation constitutional magnitude. As Townsend Burke, 334 736, 68 1252, 1690, 'this prisoner basis assumptions concerning materially untrue.' Id., 741, S.Ct., 1255. makes evident specific him.3 Yet clear wholly unconstitutional 799.4 8 We need speculate outcome prosecutions necessarily help lawyer.5 Such speculation only fruitless, quite beside point. real question results might unconstitutionally obtained.6 agree answer must be 'yes.' aware informity factual background appeared dramatically light proceeding. Instead confronting who legally felonies, dealing man beginning age 17, imprisoned more ten years, including five one-half chain gang.7 cannot re-evaluation late date will 'unrealistic.'8 10 established unequivocal rule 'making try person state unless lawyer validly waived one.' Burgett Texas, 389 109, 114, 88 258, 261, 19 319. said '(t)o permit Wainwright used against support guilt enhance punishment offense . erode principle case.' 115, 262. Erosion can prevented affirming sentence. 11 12 POWELL REHNQUIST took no decision case. 13 BLACKMUN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 14 Court's opinion, course, fine acceptable exposition abstract law. If I felt fit Tucker's case, join it. Court, fails mention give effect certain facts me, controlling: 15 1. May juvenile. 32 represented counsel. A reading testimony discloses very knowledgeable indeed. but, well, engaging proscribed underlying stated flatly (a) broke garage man's automobile, (b) jewelry store night.1 while waiting transportation after escaped using assumed name.2 Thus, apart formal conceded separate occasions. 16 2. presided pre-Gideon Honorable George B. Harris Northern California. After 25-year prescribed §§ 2113(a) Despite interim passage petition, pursuant same Harris, Chief District. denied relief use, purposes, doubt because issue innocence all close, 'had successfully impeached inconsistent statements Bureau Investigation agents, rebuttal demonstrated portions (his) (were) improbable untrue,' (c) 'testimony impeached, fact, demolished additional items.' 1376, 1378 (ND Cal.1969). this, guilt, agreed, 1293 (CA9 1970), today does otherwise. Harris' 2255 ruling translates me something completely inescapable, namely, anyway. Surely people, best knowledge effect, any, imposed. speculates despite identity obvious disclaimer, influenced rather acts himself acknowledged. presumably go once again undoubtedly Perhaps worthwhile so, content disposition principles. entertain mild suspicion, exercise futility, merely marching up hill march down again, become just little realistic face one. remands An FBI agent began stating, 'I like Agent's convictions.' testified, part, follows: 'As said, when juvenile, believe received ten-year .. '. four months gang actually served 'In 1950 year State Florida, for, burglary, January 5, 1951, custody hospital, escaped. given years. burglary.' County unreported, accuracy questioned. re 64 Cal.2d 15, 48 Cal.Rptr. 697, 409 P.2d 921; Craven, 421 139. n. 1, supra. occurred decided, impact fully retroactive. Pickelsimer 375 2, 84 80, 41. worth pointing out, make contrary assumption, i.e., turned out exactly reject reasoning based: '(R)eason reflection require recognize our adversary justice, haled court, too poor hire lawyer, assured fair counsel provided him. That hires lawyers prosecute defendants money defend strongest indications widespread belief courts necessities, luxuries.' U.S., 344, 796. validity conviction—in 1950—has determined. states its brief clerk Criminal Records Dade trial. specifically asked appoint indigence request denied. noted above, 445, emphasized dissenting held wrongful error, hardly 'translates' 'inescapable' assumption already equally callous assume, invalidity clear, 'undoubtedly' 1953. 'Q. You you not? 'A. Yes, was. what? Automobile theft, breaking entering. What mean 'automobile entering'? boils old, garage, joy riding it, sentence? Yes. When that? 1938. place stole car? car steal? '36 Ford. Tell your store. Where? Orleans. Night day? Night.' Trial Transcript 161—162. Why name Rick Bellew, did? Because fugitive Florida. fugitive. up, chance to—nobody watching walked off Where walk away from? my appendix removed hospital ..' 166. (H)e subsequently here. .' Sentencing 230.

Category: 0