Argersinger v. Hamlin

Home > A > Argersinger v. Hamlin

Share |

Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)

Argersinger (D) was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. This offense was punishable in the state of Florida by imprisonment up to six months, a $1,000 crime, or both. D was indigent, and thus came to court without counsel. The court held that the right to court-appointed counsel extends only to trials "for non-petty offenses punishable by more than six months imprisonment." D was convicted and sentenced to 90 days in jail. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed. D appealed.

The issue facing the Supreme Court was whether a state can deny counsel to an indigent if the trial involves a "petty offense." The Court held that a state cannot deny counsel; an accused has a right to counsel no matter how "petty" the offense. The Court reasoned that there is no reason to distinguish between petty and non-petty offenses, since the legal questions may be equally complex in both cases. The requirement of counsel may well be necessary for a fair trial even in a petty offense prosecution. No judge may impose imprisonment on an accused, even if the local law allows it, unless the accused is given counsel. Reversed, for D.

CONCURRENCE: (Powell, J.) An indigent charged with a petty offense is not always entitled to counsel furnished by the state. There are some cases in which the cost of assistance of counsel may exceed the benefits received by the accused. The right to counsel in petty offense cases is not absolute, but is one to be determined by the trial courts exercising a judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis.