Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselIndigent DefendantsMisdemeanorsSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentappointed counselindigent defendant
Facts
Scott was convicted in an Illinois bench trial of shoplifting merchandise valued at less than $150. The Illinois statute authorized a maximum punishment of a $500 fine or one year in jail, or both. Scott was not represented by counsel at trial and was ultimately fined $50, with no jail sentence imposed. He argued that because imprisonment was an authorized penalty, the Constitution required Illinois to provide him counsel at state expense.
Issue
Does the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require a State to appoint counsel for an indigent criminal defendant whenever imprisonment is an authorized punishment for the charged offense, even if the defendant is not actually sentenced to jail?
Rule
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require only that no indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State has afforded him the right to assistance of appointed counsel in his defense.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Columbus, Ohio, Dana Ruiz, an indigent defendant, was tried without appointed counsel for a city ordinance violation punishable by up to 180 days in jail or a $1,000 fine. After a bench trial, the judge found Dana guilty and imposed a $400 fine only.
Under the federal constitutional rule announced by the Court, was the city required to appoint counsel for Dana?
Explanation. The governing rule is the actual-imprisonment standard: no indigent criminal defendant may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State afforded the right to appointed counsel. The mere fact that jail was authorized is not enough. Because Dana received only a fine, the uncounseled conviction is constitutionally permissible under the majority's rule.