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. Shelton
represented 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 sentence
unless 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
certiorari on ,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. Wainwright is the landmark case where the Supreme (ourt decided a criminal
defendant was entitled to a lawyer to make the trial fair. #he -.
th
amendment 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 its
side, the Supreme (ourt decided that defendants needed lawyers as well to guide them
through 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. Hamlin is 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. #he
only 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 the
Supreme (ourt to mean that all people who might go to jail shall receie a lawyer.
Scott v. Illinois was decided after Argersinger v. Hamlin. #he Supreme (ourt decided that
indigent *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., /""/
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 the
eent 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 jail
term 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 actually be 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.
8 Street Law, &nc., /""/
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.
8 Street Law, &nc., /""/