Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Alabama v. Shelton

Supreme Court of the United States · 2002 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentRight to CounselMisdemeanorsSuspended SentencesProbationSixth Amendmentappointed counsel

Facts

Shelton, an indigent defendant, was convicted of third-degree assault, a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine. He represented himself at trial and, although the court warned him about self-representation, it never offered him appointed counsel at state expense. The trial court sentenced him to 30 days in jail, then immediately suspended that sentence and placed him on two years' unsupervised probation subject to payment conditions. Shelton challenged his conviction and sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel applies when an indigent misdemeanor defendant receives a suspended jail sentence and probation, even though he is not immediately incarcerated. More specifically, may a state impose such a suspended sentence without providing counsel at the underlying prosecution?

Rule

Absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense unless represented by counsel at trial. A suspended sentence that may end in the actual deprivation of liberty is a prison term imposed for the offense of conviction and therefore may not be imposed on an uncounseled indigent defendant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, an indigent defendant, Nina Torres, was tried without appointed counsel for misdemeanor trespass after telling the judge she could not afford a lawyer. The court convicted her, imposed a 20-day jail term, immediately suspended the jail term, and placed her on 12 months of probation.

If Nina challenges the sentence immediately after conviction, what is the strongest constitutional argument?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that, absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense unless represented by counsel at trial. A suspended sentence counts as a prison term imposed for the offense of conviction because, if later activated, the defendant is incarcerated for that underlying offense. Therefore, the State may not impose that suspended jail term on an uncounseled indigent defendant.