Argersinger v. Hamlin explained

Litigants:Argersinger v. Hamlin
Arguedate:December 6
Argueyear:1971
Rearguedate:February 28
Reargueyear:1972
Decidedate:June 12
Decideyear:1972
Fullname:Jon Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin, Sheriff, Leon County, Florida
Usvol:407
Uspage:25
Parallelcitations:92 S. Ct. 2006; 32 L. Ed. 2d 530; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 139
Docket:70-5015
Oralargument:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_5015/argument/
Procedural:Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court, 236 So. 2d 442.
Holding:A criminal defendant may not be actually imprisoned unless provided with counsel
Majority:Douglas
Joinmajority:Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun
Concurrence:Brennan
Joinconcurrence:Douglas, Stewart
Concurrence2:Burger
Concurrence3:Powell
Joinconcurrence3:Rehnquist
Lawsapplied:U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV

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.

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 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.

References