alabama v. shelton summary

8/12/2019 Alabama v. Shelton Summary

1/3

Alabama v. Shelton

The Facts

LeReed Shelton was charged with third-degree assault, a misdemeanor that carries a fine

and/or jail time as a punishment. Shelton asked for an attorney, but was denied. Sheltonrepresented himself at his trial. He was conicted and fined and sentenced to a jail term

of !" days. #he jail term was immediately $suspended% by the court. #his means Shelton

was placed on probation for two years. He did not hae to sere the !"-day sentenceunless he iolated the terms of his probation. &f he iolated his probation, he would be

imprisoned. #he fine that Shelton was ordered to pay is agreed by all parties to be alid.

Shelton continued to challenge his coniction on the grounds that he was not proided a

court-appointed attorney, and the case moed up through the 'labama courts. #he'labama Supreme (ourt oerturned Shelton)s sentence because he was not gien an

attorney *since he could not afford to hire his own counsel+. #he Supreme (ourt granted

certiorarion ay th, "".

The Issue

0oes a person accused of a misdemeanor hae a constitutional right to be appointed an

attorney when the prison sentence gien is suspended1

The Precedent

Gideon v. Wainwrightis the landmark case where the Supreme (ourt decided a criminal

defendant was entitled to a lawyer to make the trial fair. #he thamendment gies 2.S.citi3ens $due process% before $liberty% *freedom+ can be taken away. 0ue process

proides the right to a fair trial. Since the goernment will always hae lawyers on itsside, the Supreme (ourt decided that defendants needed lawyers as well to guide themthrough their case and stand up for them. #his case didn)t gie eeryone a right to an

attorney, only those accused of ery serious crimes *felonies+.Argersinger v. Hamlin

changed that.

Argersinger v. Hamlinis an important case about the right to an attorney. 4hen someone

is charged with a crime, the court must gie that person an attorney if he or she does not

hae enough money to hire one and there is a chance that person could go to jail. #heonly way an accused person does not get an attorney is if he or she made a knowing and

intelligent choice to gie that right up. 5ecause going to prison is considered a significant

punishment, the constitutional guarantee of fairness in a trial has been interpreted by theSupreme (ourt to mean that all people who might go to jail shall receie a lawyer.

Scott v. Illinoiswas decided afterArgersinger v. Hamlin. #he Supreme (ourt decided thatindigent *or poor+ persons charged with a crime don)t hae to hae a court-appointed *or

free+ lawyer if they aren)t actually sent to jail. 6or e7ample, if a crime is punishable by a

fine or a term of imprisonment, and the accused person is ordered to pay a fine, the

8 Street Law, &nc., ""


2/3

accused did not hae the right to an attorney. 9aying a fine is not seen as seere a

punishment as going to jail.

The Supreme Courts Decision*

Justice Ginsburg wrote the Majority Oinion

&n a :- decision, the Supreme (ourt upheld the 'labama Supreme (ourt. #he (ourt

affirmed that because a suspended prison sentence may result in imprisonment *in theeent of a iolation of the terms of probation+, indigent defendants must be gien their

constitutional right to counsel to ensure a fair trial.

9ast cases hae made the position clear that a person cannot be depried of his or

her liberty and be imprisoned without a fair trial. &t is essential that a lawyer be

proided to a defendant to ensure that a trial is fair.

&f there is a possibility that the crime a defendant is accused of could lead to a jailterm as punishment, the constitution re;uires that person be proided with an

attorney.

Shelton is entitled to appointed counsel at the critical stage when his guilt or

innocence of the charged crime is decided and whether he may be imprisoned is

determined.

#he suspended sentence could technically be gien with the understanding that

the jail sentence could neer be imposed if the probation was iolated, but this

would make the probation unenforceable. Shelton)s suspended sentence is

reersed.

Justice Scalia wrote the !issenting Oinion

Someone has to actuallybe sent to jail before he or she is entitled to a lawyer. #he

mere threat of imprisonment is not enough *remember Scott v. Illinois+. Shelton

neer did lose his freedom< he was only threatened with the possibility.

(ases where suspended sentences are gien with a possible jail term if probation

is iolated is so common and routine, the judicial system and public defense

lawyers would be oerwhelmed if attorneys had to be assigned to each case.

Suspended sentences should be allowed without an attorney. &f the probation is

iolated and the defendant is to be imprisoned, it is at this point that the court

=#he reasoning of the two groupings of >ustices reflects the arguments for each side.#herefore, the majority opinion affirms the arguments of Shelton, while the dissenting

opinion agrees with 'labama)s arguments.



3/3

must appoint a lawyer. 'n attorney will be proided at the hearing determining

the iolation of probation, not at the phase where guilt or innocence is decided. '

defendant, therefore, will not go to jail without representation of counsel.


alabama v. shelton summary

Documents