Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Alabama Vs. Shelton

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 20, 2002

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

64 entries 5 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. South Central Bell Telephone Co. Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1999
  2. United States Vs. Cronic US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  3. Argersinger Vs. Hamlin US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1972
  4. Gagnon Vs. Scarpelli US Supreme Court · May 14, 1973
  5. United States Vs. Watts US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1997
  6. U.S. 654 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Alabama V. Shelton
    Search
  7. Alabama Supreme Court reversed Shelton's suspended jail sentence, reasoning that this Court's decisions in Argersinger v. Hamlin
    Search
  8. U. S. 25 , and Scott v. Illinois
    Search
  9. Nichols v. United
    Search
  10. amicus resists this reasoning, i. e., amicus' attempt to align this case with Nichols and with Gagnon v. Scarpelli
    Search
  11. gave rise to his previous conviction, 511 U. S., at 748, even if he had never been charged with that conduct, Williams v. New
    Search
  12. U. S. 241 , and even if he had been acquitted of a misdemeanor with the aid of appointed counsel, United States v. Watts
    Search
  13. leaving Shelton's probation term freestanding and independently effective. See Hortonville Joint School Dist. No. 1 v. Hortonville
    Search
  14. to the assistance of courtappointed counsel. Two prior decisions control the Court's judgment. First, in Argersinger v. Hamlin
    Search
  15. id., at 33. Later, in Scott v. Illinois
    Search
  16. App. 37 (quoting United States v. Reilley
    Search
  17. United States v. White
    Search
  18. F.2d 1390 , 1394 (CA8 1976). Others have rejected that proposition. See, e. g., Cottle v. Wainwright
    Search
  19. Griswold v. Commonwealth
    Search
  20. State v. Hansen
    Search
  21. to appointed counsel he might have enjoyed. Ibid. 3 Shelton also urges this Court to overrule Argersinger v. Hamlin
    Search
  22. U. S. 25 (1972), and Scott v. Illinois
    Search
  23. U. S. 987 (2001).4 A In Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  24. s guarantee of the right to state-appointed counsel, firmly established in federal-court proceedings in Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  25. standard. See, e. g., Glover v. United
    Search
  26. Lassiter v. Department
    Search
  27. primarily on two grounds. First, he attempts to align this case with our decisions in Nichols and Gagnon v. Scarpelli
    Search
  28. previous conviction, id., at 748 (emphasis added), even if he had never been charged with that conduct, Williams v. New
    Search
  29. and even if he had been acquitted of the misdemeanor with the aid of appointed counsel, United States v. Watts
    Search
  30. one, Buckelew v. State
    Search
  31. the defendant has no right to counsel, and the court no obligation to observe customary rules of evidence, Martin v. State
    Search
  32. to demonstrate error in the original proceeding or reconstruct evidence lost in the intervening period. Nichols v. United
    Search
  33. State v. Hermanns
    Search
  34. See Alexander v. Anchorage
    Search
  35. Tracy v. Municipal
    Search
  36. Brunson v. State
    Search
  37. Wright v. Denato
    Search
  38. Commonwealth v. Thomas
    Search
  39. JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. In Argersinger v. Hamlin
    Search
  40. of appointed counsel. Id., at 40 (emphasis added). We affirmed this rule in Scott v. Illinois
    Search
  41. repeatedly emphasized actual imprisonment as the touchstone of entitlement to appointed counsel. See, e. g., Glover v. United
    Search
  42. with respect to constitutional questions (as to which we seek to avoid even non-advisory opinions, Ashwander v. TVA
    Search
  43. of, not in addition to, post-trial probation. 3 The Court quotes Chief Justice Burger's concurrence in Argersinger v. Hamlin
    Search
  44. State v. Hardman
    Search
  45. State v. Woodruff
    Search
  46. Fortner v. State
    Search
  47. Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt
    Search
  48. State v. McCoy
    Search
  49. Syllabus Alabama V. Shelton
    Search
  50. and Scott v. Illinois
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial