United States v. Tucker
404 U.S. 443 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sentence is unconstitutional if it is founded, at least in part, upon misinformation of a constitutional magnitude, such as prior convictions that are invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright because the defendant was denied the right to counsel. A defendant in such a case is entitled to be resentenced without consideration of the invalid convictions.
Facts:
- In 1938, Forrest S. Tucker was convicted of a felony in Florida.
- In 1946, Tucker was convicted of another felony in Louisiana.
- In 1950, Tucker was convicted of a third felony in Florida.
- In 1953, Tucker was tried for armed bank robbery in a federal court.
- During the 1953 trial, Tucker testified in his own defense, and on cross-examination, the prosecution impeached his credibility by questioning him about his three prior felony convictions.
- During the sentencing proceeding for the 1953 bank robbery, the judge gave explicit attention to Tucker's three prior felony convictions before imposing the maximum sentence of 25 years.
- Several years later, the 1938 and 1946 convictions were determined to be constitutionally invalid because Tucker had been unrepresented by counsel and had not intelligently waived his right to one.
Procedural Posture:
- Forrest S. Tucker filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Federal District Court where he was convicted in 1953, seeking to have his conviction and sentence vacated.
- The District Court denied the motion, finding that although the use of the invalid convictions for impeachment was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the guilty verdict.
- Tucker appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's refusal to vacate the conviction but found a 'reasonable probability' that the invalid convictions influenced the sentence.
- The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for resentencing, instructing it not to consider the two invalid prior convictions.
- The United States (petitioner) sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
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 a sentence violate due process if the sentencing judge gave explicit consideration to prior convictions that are later found to be constitutionally invalid because the defendant was denied the right to counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. A sentence founded at least in part upon misinformation of constitutional magnitude, such as a prior conviction obtained in violation of the right to counsel, is unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that this case does not concern a judge's broad sentencing discretion but rather a sentence based on 'materially untrue' assumptions about the defendant's criminal record, referencing Townsend v. Burke. The key question is not whether the outcomes of the prior invalid proceedings would have been different, but whether the 1953 sentence might have been different if the judge had known two of the convictions were unconstitutionally obtained. The Court concluded it might have, because the judge would have seen a man who was unconstitutionally imprisoned for over ten years, not a three-time felon. Citing Burgett v. Texas, the Court held that using a conviction obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright to enhance punishment erodes the principle of that case, and remanding for resentencing is the necessary remedy.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. The sentence should stand because there is no realistic possibility that the sentencing judge was actually influenced by the two invalid convictions. The dissent argued that at his 1953 trial, Tucker admitted under oath to the underlying criminal conduct of the prior convictions. Furthermore, the same judge who imposed the original sentence later reviewed the case on a § 2255 motion and found the error harmless, which the dissent interprets as an 'inescapable' indication that the judge would have imposed the maximum sentence anyway based on Tucker's admitted criminal history. Remanding the case is an 'exercise in futility' as the district court will undoubtedly impose the same sentence again.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle from Burgett v. Texas that convictions obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel cannot be used to enhance punishment in subsequent proceedings. It establishes that a defendant has a due process right to be resentenced if a sentencing judge explicitly relied on such invalid prior convictions. The case clarifies that the constitutional infirmity of a prior conviction constitutes 'misinformation of constitutional magnitude,' which taints the sentencing process regardless of the defendant's factual guilt in the prior case. This creates a clear procedural remedy (resentencing) for defendants whose sentences may have been inflated by unconstitutional priors.
