Document: 450 U.S. 261 101 S.Ct. 1097 67 L.Ed.2d 220 Raymond WOOD et al., Petitioners,v.State of GEORGIA. No. 79-6027. Argued Nov. 4, 1980. Decided March 1981. Syllabus Petitioners, former employees an "adult" movie theatre and bookstore, were convicted distributing obscene materials in violation a Georgia statute received fines jail sentences but placed on probation the condition that they make monthly installment payments toward satisfaction their fines. When petitioners failed to payments, revocation hearing was held. who had by time left jobs establishments, offered evidence inability stated expected employer pay for them. unable up arrearages, trial court denied motion modify conditions ordered serve remaining portions sentences. After Court Appeals affirmed, this granted writ certiorari decide whether it is constitutional under Equal Protection Clause imprison probationer solely because his Held : This inappropriate case which equal protection question. Since record suggests may be present predicament counsel's divided loyalties, possible due process apparent, remanded further findings concerning such violation. Pp. 264-274. (a) The transcript shows understood would provide legal assistance if should face trouble as result employment, any fines, post necessary bonds. Petitioners have been represented since arrest single lawyer, paid posted bonds other when each arrested second time. If petitioners' counsel serving employer's interest obtaining ruling offenders cannot jailed failure are beyond means, could only occur own means then risked failing pay, conflict goals influenced court's decisions impose large revoke probations rather than thereof. 264-268. (b) basic strategic interest, right representation free from conflicts not respected at hearing, or earlier stages proceedings. possibility sufficiently apparent upon duty inquire further. remand finds actual existed earlier, there no valid waiver independent counsel, must hold new untainted representative conflicting interests. 268-274. 150 Ga.App. 582, 258 S.E.2d 171, vacated remanded. Glenn Zell, Atlanta, Ga., petitioners. John W. Dunsmore, Jr., respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 three persons sentenced periods regular substantial Because these revoked court, now claiming revocations discriminated against them basis wealth Fourteenth Amendment. loyalties we concluded reach merits difficult issue. Instead, 2 * Tante Allen working, respectively, projectionist ticket taker Plaza Theatre Atlanta charged with two counts Ga.Code § 26-2101 (1978). About four months later, petitioner Wood violations same provision after he sold magazines policeman while working Adult Bookstore. There owned businesses served managerial responsibilities. 3 tried together found guilty both jury. A separate jury counts. All judge. fine $5,000 concurrent 12 months, allowed immediate probation. consecutive months; also immediately. 4 convictions affirmed appeal,1 issued orders specifying terms These required all $500 per month during course elapsed, none made county officers therefore moved probations. At January 26, 1979, admitted convincing out earnings.2 They employer3 Faced complete satisfy probations, decided unless arrearages within five days. Unable do so, modification denied, II 5 decision Appeals,4 question presented facts just summarized: 446 951, 100 2916, 64 807. On closer inspection, however, reveals Where, here, particular case, empowered consider issue.5 Moreover, prudential reasons, preferable us consideration issue, novel avoided. Cf. Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 101, 105, 65 152, 154, 89 L.Ed. (1944) (broad questions avoided where narrower, statutory grounds remand). 6 arrests lawyer. testimony makes clear ever paid—or pay—the lawyer services.6 provided employer.7 In fact, one aspect promised employment. told bonds,8 promises kept most part. itself, oral argument, funds provided.9 addition, time, resulting fines.10 aspects arrangement revealed hearing. 7 For some reason, declined money cases presently review.11 predicament, has acted agent employer, risk situation evident. fact chose refuse payment even it12 sums keep bond seeking—in its interest—a resolution claim raised here. operator establishments escape burden paying imposed conducting business. To obtain ruling, receive pay. 8 Although sure attorney seeking create test interests facts. Indications various proceedings below. It conceded argument here protest about size sentencing. During leading small amounts indicate good faith. throughout period, apparently remained impression that—as promised—the employer. Even attempted prove those requirements. That until day before incarcerated.13 review demonstrates that, setting precedent, well conditions.14 III 9 Courts commentators recognized inherent dangers arise criminal defendant hired third party, particularly party alleged enterprise.15 One will prevent client leniency preventing offering taking actions contrary interest.16 Another kind where, fees long-range establishing precedent so defendants themselves sacrificed.17 As suggested above, factual requires take note potential unfairness third-party fee arrangement. mere employees, performing routine duties, yet heavy assumption prison having injustice serious require deprived federal rights Due Process 10 We held protections apply parole revocations. Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 93 1756, 36 656 (1973); Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 92 2593, 33 484 (1972). Scarpelli adopted standard deciding appointment indigent hearings. Recognizing "need hearings derives, invariable attributes hearings, peculiarities cases," U.S., 789, S.Ct., 1763, state tribunals identify, case-by-case basis, situations fundamental fairness appointed counsel. 11 appeared retained 27-2713 But, significantly, showing indigence rely. established presumption favor matter "there reasons justified mitigated inappropriate, . complex otherwise develop present." 790, 1763. assurances unnamed falls into category. Where exists, our Sixth Amendment correlative interest. E.g., Cuyler Sullivan, 335, 1708, 333 (1980); Holloway Arkansas, 435 475, 481, 98 1173, 1177, 55 426 Here, pursued single-mindedly. originally sentencing later seek convince lenient. us, him. 13 is, determine present, especially without benefit briefing Nevertheless, does demonstrate further.18 outlined above known disproportionately penalties almost certainly increased fines.19 did know pressing attack making arguments might resulted reductions in, deferrals of, convincingly recognize disqualifying Any doubt aware problem dispelled State explicitly requested look it.20 14 base grounds. judgment below instructions returned Fulton County. strongly actually earlier. interests.21 15 Vacated 16 STEVENS, concurring. 17 I join Court's opinion, my view disclosed rest hypothesis contrived case. See ante, 267-268, 269-270. rests instead likelihood significantly different sentence led believe 18 Independent individuals surely permitted judge manifestly ability enforceable commitment But faithfully representing gratuitously. net unfair person probably principal wrongdoer. 19 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring part dissenting 20 While agree interest" shown record, 267, option nevertheless finally dispose can done, WHITE concludes, reversing Appeals, reason Tate Short, 401 395, 91 668, 28 130 (1971), compels conclusion. would, reverse conviction (1978) frequently expressed, adhere, obscenity facially unconstitutional. Paris Slaton, 413 49, 73, 113, 2628, 2642, 2662, 37 (1973) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); McKinney Alabama, 424 669, 678, 96 1189, 1195, 47 387 (1976) (separate J.). 21 STEWART, 22 correct remanding "clear go themselves, statute. statute, (1978), 23 WHITE, dissenting. 24 disposition twice flawed: first, jurisdiction vacate ground rests; second, sustain inferences support judgment. 25 petition question: Does permit indigent's fine? issue properly ruled courts. No brought Court, disposes another ground, involves issue: possibly Thus, avoid another, either question, nor see why prefer jurisdiction. 26 273, n. conflict-of-interest respondent, Georgia. merely argued agreed arguing indigency. Neither confessed error given indication anything affirmance below—hardly appropriate suggesting nowhere passage response cited "conflict used, suggestion acting fine. 27 However State's characterized, comes court. Our jurisdiction, therefore, arises U.S.C. 1257(3) limited privileges "specially set claimed," final highest had. right-to-counsel never render thus, jurisdictional bar reaching Moore Illinois, 786, 799, 2562, 2570, 706 (1972); Hill California, 797, 805, 1106, 1111, (1971); Cardinale Louisiana, 394 437, 1161, 398 (1969), there. courts respect adequacy testified urged incarcerate violate cross-examination, indicated assured employee this. asserted several times corporate being concern represent petitioners.1 far relief petitioners, misled thinking undertaking enforced sending "out while."2 renege want taken care event arose.3 arguments, mentioned Federal Constitution. 29 Petitioners' turn responded although advance between latter, paid, He jailing Clause.4 ethical mind attorney, complaint filed Bar.5 30 judge, rejecting claim, probation, pending appeal. sole laws. rejected, Supreme review. said, 31 asserts "it treat 'raised' below, proceed here." Ante, 265, 5. However, fails cite dimension. relies 2106, section purport expand limits jurisdiction; rather, relates once exists. What REHNQUIST wrote Vachon New Hampshire, 414 478, 482, 94 664, 666, 38 666 (1974) (dissenting opinion), equally applicable here: 32 "A litigant preserve lower nature constitutionally grounded. Bailey Anderson, 326 203, 66 66, 90 (1945)." done neither; respondent 34 believes (1980), dimensions prompted inquiry Sullivan give over reach. "reasonably exists," id., 347, 1717, initiate constitute remain collateral courts.6 35 majority proceeds address process/adequacy-of-counsel Accordingly, assumption. it, critical assumptions supported record. Certainly itself dimension.7 Indeed, expect normal things corresponded much employees' adjudged innocent. Similarly, assuming whatever levied lowest amount. interests, emerges owner adult bookstore theater, construct regard. Not pursue assume sake object move timely fashion conclusion "possibility" scenario, find implausible stronger speculate motive knowing cooperation end, let alone basis.8 First, submission sustained position, liability obligation litigating through Second, more plausible explanations neither implies interest: reneged promise longer ownership changed hands.9 continued meet expenses, me manipulated case; likely, because, change circumstances expense simply greater willing bear point. unwilling advanced very best available petitioners.10 derelict press behalf clients. Obviously, success advantaged petitioners; fail see, Tr. 15, 28, how assertion claim. move, belatedly, parole11 indicates interested cutting costs creating case.12 substantive resolve. 39 think suitable term lieu fine, circumstances, exceeded 40 Williams 399 235, 2018, 586 (1970), Williams, petty theft, maximum year's imprisonment (plus $5 costs). Illinois if, one-year expired, immediately costs, length sufficient total debt, calculated rate day. "the ceiling offense irrespective economic status." Id., 244, 2023. Therefore, applied too poor violated Clause. 41 involved incarcerated nonpayment violating traffic ordinances. Under Texas law, offenses punishable imprisonment. $425 nine convictions, pursuant provisions municipal ordinance him again reversed authority saying: "Since legislated 'fines only' policy offenses, cannot, consistently Clause, limit punishment able convert fine." 399, 671. careful repeat what said " 'The powerless enforce judgments financially fine' choose effectuate end. 42 supra, 243, 2023, emphasized holding "does deal confinement familiar pattern alternative $30 days." appear "jail [was] rational trade-off punish individual possesses accumulated assets substitute provision, phrased collection [did] discretionary sentence, equate[d] days fixed sum." 2034. (Harlan, result). Harlan implied, confronted legislative scheme sentences, analysis different. 43 Indigency insulate law whatsoever. installments, punishment, term, fine.13 comply specified essentially serves purpose enforcing violated. principle speaking inconsistently: legislature declared penalizing satisfied (in Tate, all) subjected offender punishment. 44 incarceration distinguished unconstitutional Tate. probated probation: Had full satisfied, all. ends justice system call loss liberty except incident 45 incarcerating efficacious satisfying involved. calculation like Upon nonpayment, automatically terms.14 attempt provide, addition proper terms, liable unpaid little regard system. inconsistently necessity penal objectives; impermissible. 46 meant prohibit announced 398, 671, quoting Morris Schoonfield, 508, 509, 2232, 2233, 773 'Constitution prohibits imposing converting indigent.' State, 144 233, 240 754 (1977), cert. 439 899, 99 264, 58 247 (1978); 236, 743 According testimony, establishments. her income $250 unemployment insurance. Transcript Revocation Hearing, County, Criminal Division (Jan. 1979) (hereinafter Tr.), 7. correction officer $540 month. 35. unemployed eight job. 39-40. trying family earning $120 week truck trailer rental yard. 53-54. Theatre, employed Allen, Bookstore, Wood, common ownership. 171 (1979). WHITE's argues lacks view, presented. sure, appeal included certiorari. emphasize, prepared charge focused. unlikely concede improperly act And Solicitor, whose attention courts, did. low-level indigent. 2, supra. they, initiative, capable protecting indicated, post, 277-278, 1; 20, infra, abundantly pointed Solicitor repeatedly. Brief Opposition identified conflict. infra. heard complain lack notice. context, "raised" Boynton Virginia, 364 454, 457, 81 182, 184, 206 (1960) (deciding Court). considers technically ample justice. 2106 (authorizing "require circumstances"); R. Stern & E. Gressman, Practice 6.27, p. 460 (5th ed. 1978) cases, doubtless power notice plain feels proceedings"). (1974). (Allen); (Tante); 63 (Wood). 42-43 (Tante). himself put it: "I bring Mrs. she Probation Officer she—they told, information paid. them." 14. 62-63 trials. Oral Arg. 15-16. stopped went implication ongoing employment 8. involvement end quit work 12, 41, 56-57. took place instant still direct Counsel explained suggest, lost providing conscious one. losing services revocation. corporation, indeed identify states alert letter, soon began. made. danger improper considerations. Rather relying claims, sought stiff modified light unanticipated refusal dwell bad faith emphasize came Thus correct, argues, 281, case." motives unrelated position obligations. stated: inheres every situation. inherently wrong employee's may, public will, disclosure conduct. represents accept testimony." re Abrams, 56 N.J. 271, 276, 266 A.2d 275, 278 (1970). Investigation Before April 1975 Grand Jury, 174 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 274, 11, 531 F.2d 600, 606, (1976); Pirillo Takiff, 462 Pa. 511, 341 896 (1975), dism'd 423 1083, 873, ABA Model Code Professional Responsibility DR 5-107(A), (B) Standards 4-3.5(c) (2d 1980); Lowenthal, Joint Representation Cases: Critical Appraisal, Va.L.Rev. 939, 960-961 indications learn name concealing identity. point, "Mrs. true you get your operating places?" 28. Later, Solicitor's cross-examination Tante, following colloquy place: "Q Mr. called someone else there? secretary union first. company? Did them? company, gave to—whatever was. Mister—what name? "MR. ZELL [petitioners' attorney] I'm sorry, wasn't listening. manager theatre, Mister—I 'I possible. I'd leave now.' 'As concerned, out, that's it.' You Zell tell operate theatre? No, sir. business union, wanted out; man sent out. informed send talked said? not, Mister—Mrs. said— Hold it. Tante. It's ten-thirty, Your Honor. We're getting areas that—the directed." 45-46. EC 5-23 (1980) states: organization pays furnishes lawyers exert strong pressures lawyers. Some employers furthering economic, political, social professional responsibility client. Others concerned establishment extension principles lawyer's always exercise person, constantly guard erosion freedom." (Emphasis added.) dissent gone recent 1709, (1980). Yet nothing rules raising mandates reversal though "knows reasonably exists." 1717. Both petitioners—relatively minor impecunious participants enterprises—the assumed 13, 40. point discussion Allen's Rhodes, way: RHODES: show Honor, fact—that [the else. She choice. down her. acquiesced employ "THE COURT: right. How relevant issue? say, there's "Mr. "They woman expenses. There's Zell's, first he's doing. He's 26-27 (emphasis added). 14-15. noted 5, grant "During discussions Petitioner's [sic ] Theater, theater employed. attempting agreement, indigents. ." revocations, order sweeping relief, vacating convictions. Such do, discretion motion. habeas corpus proceedings, trials colloquy, similar others, hearing: submit Zell's company people money. purporting legally expenses people. ask determination necessary, agreement now. Allen. Now, contends wouldn't "Now "And company. allegiance ought looked wish respond? ZELL: don't sense saying wants to. into. specifically into? supposedly doing come up." Hearing (Tr.) appendix Other 25-28. 15. certiorari: "In Respondent intention whatsoever thus enforcement tool hostage beliefs others By using shield hide behind virtue silence conclude fines." 10. Elsewhere, "that start way really know, point." 74. 16-20. 27: suggest Rhodes report Bar glad testify impropriety Bar." Rule 34.1(a), plain-error rule, authorize state-court "possible" sua sponte, discovered litigation 34.1(a) parties. (1960). (1974), relied "plain error" rule statement. appellant unsuccessfully sufficiency evidence—below addressed contend raise below; raised, "federal claim." majority, evidently, thought trial, ended 13-16. said: I've least asked, course, ability, defendants, explanation court." 68. Interesting exchange petitioners: select attorney? Yes, long trust life, yes, sir, selected him." 42. reveals, date complained representation. If, hands, seems ex-employer continue concerned. argue fully financial Response 2. amply creates artificial prevented repeatedly fined latter 69. rejected reconsider likely lead result. inadequacy late filing motion, leniency. statement supports: assertions directed way. period inference Responsibility, 5-107(B) focuses penalty structures punishments, tailored responding committed. tailoring defendant, York, 337 241, 246-250, 69 1079, 1082-1085, 1337 (1949), context structuring clear, quite heavy, perhaps anticipation expectation performed jail, term.

Category: 1