Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealtrialmisdemeanorprobationprobation violation
defendanttrialamicus curiaemisdemeanorprobationrespondent

Related Cases

In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 643 F.2d 195, 31 Fed.R.Serv.2d 632, 1981-1 Trade Cases P 63,966
View Case »
Hawk v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.App.3d 108, 116 Cal.Rptr. 713
View Case »
United States v. Monsanto Lopez, 798 Fed.Appx. 688
View Case »
Hayes v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 513 F.2d 892
View Case »
Mack v. City of Minneapolis, 333 N.W.2d 744
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 122 S.Ct. 1764, 152 L.Ed.2d 888, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4307, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5472, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 281

Facts

LeReed Shelton represented himself in an Alabama Circuit Court trial for third-degree assault, a misdemeanor. Despite warnings from the court about the risks of self-representation, he was not offered counsel at state expense. After being convicted, he received a 30-day jail sentence, which was suspended, and was placed on two years of probation. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals initially affirmed his conviction but later reversed the suspended sentence, leading to the state's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Defendant-respondent LeReed Shelton, convicted of third-degree assault, was sentenced to a jail term of 30 days, which the trial court immediately suspended, placing Shelton on probation for two years.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to a defendant in Shelton's situation, where a suspended sentence may lead to actual imprisonment.

The question presented is whether the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel, as delineated in Argersinger and Scott, applies to a defendant in Shelton's situation.

Rule

A suspended sentence that may lead to actual deprivation of liberty cannot be imposed unless the defendant was provided with the guiding hand of counsel during the prosecution.

The controlling rule is that 'absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense … unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.'

Analysis

The court applied the 'actual imprisonment' rule established in previous cases, determining that a suspended sentence constitutes a prison term. Since Shelton was not provided counsel during his trial, the court concluded that activating the suspended sentence upon a probation violation would result in imprisonment based on an uncounseled conviction, which is prohibited by the Sixth Amendment.

Applying the 'actual imprisonment' rule, the Court rejects the argument of its invited amicus curiae that failure to appoint counsel to an indigent defendant does not bar the imposition of a suspended or probationary sentence upon conviction of a misdemeanor, even though the defendant might be incarcerated in the event probation is revoked.

Conclusion

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Alabama Supreme Court's decision, holding that a suspended sentence cannot be imposed without the defendant being represented by counsel.

Held: A suspended sentence that may 'end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty' may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded 'the guiding hand of counsel' in the prosecution for the crime charged.

Who won?

LeReed Shelton prevailed in the case because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling that a suspended sentence leading to potential imprisonment requires the provision of counsel.

Defendant-respondent Shelton argued that an indigent defendant may not receive a suspended sentence unless he is offered or waives the assistance of state-appointed counsel.

You must be