Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Nichols v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentRight to CounselSentencingSentence Enhancementuncounseled misdemeanorScott v. IllinoisBaldasar overruled

Facts

In 1990, Nichols pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. At sentencing, the district court added one criminal history point for a 1983 state DUI misdemeanor conviction for which Nichols had been fined $250 and not incarcerated. The district court found that the DUI conviction was uncounseled and that, on the record before it, Nichols had not waived counsel. Counting that conviction increased his criminal history category from II to III and raised his Guidelines range from 168-210 months to 188-235 months.

Issue

Does the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit a sentencing court from considering a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, valid because no prison term was imposed, to enhance punishment for a subsequent conviction?

Rule

An uncounseled misdemeanor conviction that is constitutionally valid under Scott v. Illinois because no prison term was imposed is also valid when used to enhance punishment at a subsequent conviction. Enhancement provisions punish only the later offense and do not alter the penalty for the earlier conviction.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Dana Morales pleaded guilty to a federal mail fraud charge. At sentencing, the judge added criminal history points for Dana's earlier uncounseled municipal shoplifting conviction from Tucson, for which she had received only a $300 fine and no jail time.

Dana argues that the Sixth Amendment bars any use of that earlier uncounseled conviction to increase her prison sentence now. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction valid under the actual-imprisonment rule may be used to enhance punishment for a subsequent conviction. Because Dana's prior misdemeanor resulted only in a fine and no prison term, it was valid under that rule, and its later use in calculating criminal history is constitutionally permissible.