407 U.S. 25 (1972)
Argersinger, an indigent defendant, was charged in Florida with carrying a concealed weapon, an offense punishable by up to six months' imprisonment, a one-thousand-dollar fine, or both.1 Being without funds and without counsel, he asked the trial court to appoint counsel for him.2 The court refused the request on the ground that the right to court-appointed counsel extended only to trials for offenses punishable by more than six months' imprisonment.3 Argersinger was tried without counsel, convicted, and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail.4 He was then held in custody by respondent Sheriff Hamlin of Alachua County.
After his conviction, Argersinger filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court.5 He asserted that his imprisonment without the assistance of counsel violated the Constitution and laws of the United States.6 The Florida Supreme Court rejected the petition in a four-to-three decision, holding that the right to court-appointed counsel extends only to trials for non-petty offenses punishable by more than six months' imprisonment.7
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.8 The matter was argued on December 6, 1971, and reargued on February 28, 1972.9 On June 12, 1972, the Court issued its decision reversing the judgment below.10
Whether the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant in a state prosecution for a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months' imprisonment when the defendant is actually sentenced to jail?11
The Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.12
Yes. Argersinger was an indigent defendant charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months' imprisonment.13 The trial court denied his request for appointed counsel solely because the maximum authorized sentence did not exceed six months.14 Argersinger was tried without counsel and convicted.
He was then sentenced to ninety days in jail and held in custody by Sheriff Hamlin.15 Because imprisonment was actually imposed without the assistance of counsel, the constitutional guarantee was violated under the rule announced in this case.16
The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court denying habeas corpus relief must be reversed because Argersinger was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when sentenced to imprisonment.17
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Douglas And Stewart, Jj.
Justice Brennan joined the opinion of the Court but emphasized that the constitutional line drawn today constitutes a minimum rather than a maximum requirement.18 He observed that states remain free to appoint counsel in all criminal cases and that many already do so.19 Brennan further noted that law students participating in clinical programs at accredited law schools can provide significant assistance in representing indigent defendants in the expanded class of cases reached by the decision.20
These programs supplement existing student practice rules in thirty-eight states.21
Joined by Rehnquist, J.
Justice Powell concurred in the result but rejected the majority's bright-line rule that counsel must be appointed whenever imprisonment is a possible penalty.22 He advocated instead for a case-by-case determination of the need for counsel based on factors including the complexity of the case, the probable sentence, and the individual defendant's ability to present a defense.23 Powell stressed the ancient distinction between felonies and misdemeanors and warned that the majority's inflexible approach would impose severe practical burdens on already overcrowded lower courts across the fifty states.24
Chief Justice Burger concurred in the result and agreed that any deprivation of liberty is a serious matter requiring careful consideration.25 He focused on the implementation difficulties created by the new rule.26 He noted that trial judges and prosecutors would need to make predictive evaluations before trial to determine whether a jail sentence is likely and to appoint counsel accordingly. Burger highlighted the American Bar Association standards recommending counsel whenever loss of liberty is a practical possibility.27
He observed that the legal profession has historically risen to meet increased demands placed upon it by evolving constitutional requirements.28