Full case name Argersinger v. Hamlin Argument Oral argument | Docket nos. 70-5015 End date 1972 | |
 | ||
Citations 407 U.S. 25 (more)92 S. Ct. 2006; 32 L. Ed. 2d 530; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 139 Procedural history Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court, 236 So. 2d 442. Majority Douglas, joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun Similar Powell v Alabama, Alabama v Shelton, Gideon v Wainwright, Johnson v Zerbst, Betts v Brady | ||
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Contents
Background
Jon Richard Argersinger was sentenced under Florida law to 90 days in jail for carrying a concealed weapon, but was never represented by counsel. Hamlin was the local sheriff. Argersinger claimed his conviction was unconstitutional, but his case was dismissed by the Florida Supreme Court, who relied on Duncan v. Louisiana, which held that jury trials were not required for crimes with a sentence of less than six months. The Florida court claimed that since jury trials were not required for misdemeanors, then neither was counsel.
Supreme Court decision
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the Florida courts, and overturned the conviction. The Court held that a criminal defendant may not be actually imprisoned unless provided with counsel.