In the Alabama v. Shelton , Lereed Shelton exercised his right to self-representation in an Alabama court. Although the court advised the defendant against the difficulties of representing himself, it did not provide him with the assistance of counsel at state expense. Resultantly, Shelton lost the case and was found guilty of misdemeanor assault, which attracted a 30-day jail sentence that was subsequently suspended by the trial court, placing the defendant on two years’ unsupervised probation (“Alabama v. Shelton”, n.d.). The defendant, however, appealed the ruling on the grounds of his Sixth Amendment.
The Sixth Amendment provides a respondent with the right to be provided with assistance of counsel in federal prosecution. A defendant has the right to counsel during a court proceeding, irrespective of the stage of proceeding (“Alabama v. Shelton”, n.d.). Besides, the right to counsel, as stipulated by the Sixth Amendment and made applicable in state courts by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is not controlled by the categorization of a crime or whether if a jury trial applies a case. Thus, no defendant should be deprived of his liberty due to any criminal prosecution, irrespective of whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) , the U.S Supreme Court made a ruling in favor of Gideon. Gideon, who was accused of breaking and entering, was not granted legal counsel in an open court ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reinstated the ruling in a petition presented by Gideon to challenge his sentence, arguing that the trial judge failed to grant him any legal counsel ( Gideon v. Wainwright , 1963). The case was forward to the United State’s Supreme Court, which adopted the assumptions of Betts v. Brady 316 U.S. 455 (1942) , where the court argued that the Sixth Amendment’s assurance of legal counsel is a mandatory right that is key to a just trial, and thus applying to the states via the Due Process Clause. Therefore, based on Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963), state judges should provide appointment of counsel in more serious misdemeanor cases.
Elsewhere, in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) , the ruling stressed the applicability of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the provision of counsel to the accused in proceedings involving hugely consequential offenses. The extent that the right to counsel for the accused indicted for a misdemeanor and is likely to face the possibility of a jail sentence. According to Justice Douglas, the complexities of misdemeanor charges risks unrepresented defendants facing assembly-line justice ( Argersinger v. Hamlin , 1972 ). Thus, for trials involving jail time to be fair, irrespective of how petty the charges are, the Court ruling found that the state has an obligation to provide assistance of counsel to the accused; the court can only sentence a convicted offender to imprisonment if the person is represented by counsel.
In the Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979) , the conviction of the lower court was reinstated by the Illinois Supreme Court, following a reference to Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) . According to the ruling, a state trial court does not have an obligation to appoint counsel for an accused criminal who is indicted for a crime for which imprisonment upon ruling is authorized but not imposed. Therefore, even though a criminal offense attracts imprisonment, a judge cannot impose it even when the local laws permit it unless the defendant has legal counsel.
The defendant chose to exercise his right to self-representation, despite the advice by the court against such a move. The court did not, however, provide any assistance of counsel to the defendant. Therefore, in accordance with the Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendments, the accused faced an unfair trial. In addition, in reference to Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) , the defendant should have been provided with legal counsel since he was charged with a crime that attracted a 30-day jail sentence. However, as per the ruling of Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979) , a judge cannot pass a ruling that imposes imprisonment even though the local law authorizes imprisonment. Therefore, since Shelton was not provided with assistance to counsel, a 30-day suspended jail term could never be activated and thus invalid.
In the cases that warrant the right to counsel, lawyers have the responsibility of protecting and establishing the rights of a defendant, along with defending them in all stages of a criminal proceeding. A lawyer has the responsibility of ensuring the rule of law and protecting its citizens against any violation of their rights (“Importance of Right to Counsel”, 2020). A lawyer that provides Shelton with legal assistance is expected to ensure that he is protected from erratic and disobliging prosecution. Cases that authorizes imprisonment may result in sentence imposition by judgments, and thus resulting in a substantial loss to the defendant. With a lot at stake, a lawyer is required to ensure that a defendant is not sentenced to imprisonment unfairly.
In summary, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require state courts to provide defendants with the assistance of counsel. In the case of Alabama v. Shelton, the defendant’s right to counsel was violated, as per the rulings in Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) , Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) , and Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979) , and therefore invalidating the 30-day jail term sentence. A lawyer has the responsibility of ensuring the rule of law and protecting the accused against any violation of his right.
References
“Alabama v. Shelton.” Oyez. Retrieved 20 December 2020. www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-1214 .
Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963).
Argersinger v. Hamlin , 407 U.S. 25, 92 S. Ct. 2006, 32 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1972).
Scott v. Illinois , 440 U.S. 367, 99 S. Ct. 1158, 59 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1979).
Importance of Right to Counsel | Charles Koch Institute. (2020). Retrieved 20 December 2020, from https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/is-access-to-counsel-the-most-important-due-process-right/
