Townsend v. Burke, Warden
334 U.S. 736 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sentencing an uncounseled defendant on the basis of assumptions concerning their prior criminal record which are materially untrue violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Petitioner Townsend was indicted for burglary and armed robbery on June 1, 1945.
- After being a fugitive, Townsend was arrested on June 3, 1945.
- Townsend was held incommunicado for approximately 40 hours, except for a ten-minute conversation with his wife.
- On June 4, 1945, Townsend confessed to the crimes.
- At a court appearance on June 5, 1945, Townsend was not represented by counsel, nor was he offered counsel.
- During the court proceeding, the sentencing judge recited what he believed to be Townsend's prior criminal record.
- This recited record included several charges that had actually been dismissed or for which Townsend had been found not guilty, such as a 1933 charge of larceny of an automobile and a 1938 charge of entry to steal and larceny.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Townsend pleaded guilty to charges of burglary and robbery in a Pennsylvania state trial court.
- The trial court sentenced Townsend to two indeterminate sentences of 10 to 20 years.
- While imprisoned, Townsend filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court system, claiming his conviction violated his constitutional rights.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the habeas corpus petition.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted review of the state supreme court's denial.
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 sentencing an uncounseled defendant based on materially false assumptions about their prior criminal record violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes. Sentencing an uncounseled defendant based on materially false assumptions about their criminal record violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Due Process Clause does not always require a state to provide counsel in non-capital cases, the absence of counsel when aggravated by circumstances that result in the defendant being prejudiced constitutes a due process violation. In this case, the sentencing judge explicitly relied on a list of prior offenses that was demonstrably false, as several charges had resulted in dismissals or findings of not guilty. A counsel would have been duty-bound to correct these material falsehoods. The pronouncement of a sentence on a 'foundation so extensively and materially false' is inconsistent with fundamental fairness and due process, regardless of whether the misinformation was a result of carelessness or intentional design.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Burton
No. The dissent did not provide a written opinion but noted their disagreement with the majority's conclusion.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical principle within due process jurisprudence, particularly concerning the right to counsel and the integrity of the sentencing process. It carves out an important exception to the then-prevailing rule of Betts v. Brady, which held that counsel was not constitutionally required in all state non-capital felony cases. By focusing on fundamental fairness, the Court demonstrated that even without an absolute right to counsel, the proceedings themselves can be so flawed as to violate due process. The decision underscores the importance of accurate information at sentencing and highlights the functional role of an attorney in safeguarding a defendant's rights by ensuring the court does not rely on misinformation. This principle of a right to a sentence based on accurate information remains a cornerstone of modern sentencing law.
Unlock the full brief for Townsend v. Burke, Warden