Court Opinion

ID: 9427890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:22:11.674646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:10.360077
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stewart,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stevens join,
concurring.
In Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367, the Court held that “the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require . . . that no indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State has afforded him the right to assistance of appointed counsel in his defense.” Id., at 373-374.
In this case the indigent petitioner, after his conviction of petit larceny, was sentenced to an increased term of imprisonment only because he had been convicted in a previous prosecution in which he had not had the assistance of appointed counsel in his defense.
It seems clear to me that this prison sentence violated the constitutional rule of Scott v. Illinois, supra, and I, therefore, join the opinion and judgment of the Court.*

It is noteworthy that the brief filed by the State of Illinois in Scott expressly anticipated the result in this case:
“When prosecuting an offense the prosecutor knows that by not requesting that counsel be appointed for defendant, he will he 'precluded, from *225enhancing subsequent offenses. To the degree that the charging of offenses involves a great deal of prosecutorial discretion and selection, the decision to pursue conviction with only limited use comes within proper scope of that discretion.” Brief for Respondent in Scott v. Illinois, O. T. 1978, No. 77-1177, p. 20 (emphasis added).
Mr. Justice BreNNAN adheres to his dissent in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367, 375.