Baldasar v. Illinois
1980 U.S. LEXIS 124, 446 U.S. 222, 64 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, valid under Scott v. Illinois because it did not result in imprisonment, may not be used under a sentence enhancement statute to convert a subsequent misdemeanor into a felony with a sentence of imprisonment.
Facts:
- In May 1975, Thomas Baldasar was convicted of misdemeanor theft in Cook County, Illinois.
- Baldasar was not represented by counsel during this proceeding and did not formally waive his right to counsel.
- For the 1975 conviction, Baldasar was fined $159 and sentenced to one year of probation, but was not incarcerated.
- In November 1975, Baldasar was charged with stealing a shower head worth $29 from a department store, a separate misdemeanor offense.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Illinois charged Thomas Baldasar with felony theft in the Du Page County Circuit Court, using his prior misdemeanor conviction to enhance the charge under a state recidivist statute.
- At trial, defense counsel's objection to the admission of the prior uncounseled conviction was overruled.
- A jury found Baldasar guilty of the felony charge, and the trial court sentenced him to a prison term of one to three years.
- Baldasar, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.
- The Appellate Court of Illinois, in a divided decision, affirmed the conviction, holding that the valid prior conviction could be used for enhancement.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois denied Baldasar's petition for leave to appeal.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the use of a prior, valid, uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, for which no imprisonment was imposed, to enhance a subsequent offense's sentence to a term of imprisonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction cannot be used to impose an increased term of imprisonment upon a subsequent conviction. For the reasons stated in the concurring opinions, a sentence of imprisonment that is enhanced based on a prior conviction where the defendant was denied the right to counsel violates the constitutional rule established in previous cases.
Concurring - Stewart, J.
Yes. This prison sentence violated the constitutional rule of Scott v. Illinois. The petitioner was sentenced to an increased term of imprisonment only because he had a prior conviction from a proceeding where he did not have the assistance of appointed counsel. Since Scott prohibits sentencing an indigent defendant to a term of imprisonment unless the state has provided counsel, using an uncounseled conviction to trigger imprisonment for a later offense is unconstitutional.
Concurring - Marshall, J.
Yes. A prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, while valid for imposing a non-imprisonment sentence for that offense, is invalid for the purpose of depriving the petitioner of his liberty in a subsequent case. The enhanced prison sentence was a direct consequence of the uncounseled conviction and is therefore forbidden under the rationale of Argersinger and Scott, which holds that an uncounseled conviction is not reliable enough to support the severe sanction of imprisonment.
Concurring - Blackmun, J.
Yes. The prior conviction is invalid and cannot be used for enhancement because the petitioner was entitled to counsel in the first proceeding. Adhering to his dissenting view in Scott v. Illinois, an indigent defendant must be afforded counsel whenever prosecuted for an offense punishable by more than six months' imprisonment, regardless of the sentence actually imposed. Since the petitioner's first offense was punishable by more than six months, the uncounseled conviction was invalid from the start.
Dissenting - Powell, J.
No. A constitutionally valid conviction should be available for all subsequent purposes, including sentence enhancement. The first conviction was valid under Scott v. Illinois because no jail time was imposed. Enhancement statutes penalize only the last offense committed, not the prior one. The majority's holding creates an illogical 'hybrid' conviction—valid for its own penalty but invalid for enhancement—which undermines the clear rationale of Scott and creates confusion for lower courts.
Analysis:
This fractured decision, with no majority rationale, established that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction cannot be used to trigger imprisonment in a later case. The concurrences offered different reasons, creating an unstable precedent. This doctrinal confusion and the dissent's strong critique of the 'hybrid' conviction's logic ultimately led the Supreme Court to overrule Baldasar twelve years later in Nichols v. United States (1994). The case serves as a key example of how a plurality decision can create an unclear rule that is difficult for lower courts to apply consistently.
