# Burgett v. Texas

> Supreme Court of the United States · November 13, 1967 · 389 U.S. 109

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423523

## Case

- **Full name:** Burgett v. Texas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** November 13, 1967
- **Citations:** 389 U.S. 109; 88 S. Ct. 258; 19 L. Ed. 2d 319; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harlan
- **Judges:** Douglas, Warren, Harlan, Black, White
- **Cited by:** 1,298 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423523

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that prior convictions obtained where the defendant was not represented by counsel and where there was no indication in the record that the defendant had waived counsel could not be used as the basis for a sentence enhancement
- recognizing that a federal petition for the writ of habeas corpus permits only limited authority to review a state court’s evidentiary ruling
- holding conviction of recidivist offense invalid under due process clause when based on prior conviction for which record failed to show defendant was represented by counsel or had knowingly and intelligently waived his sixth amendment right to appointed counsel
- holding that prior convictions obtained where the 8 defendant was not represented by counsel and where there was no indication in the record that the defendant had waived counsel could not be used as the basis for a sentence enhancement
- explaining that conviction obtained in violation of Sixth Amendment right to counsel may not be used "either to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense"

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Harlan,
whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice White join,
dissenting.
The record in this case shows no prosecutorial bad faith or intentional misconduct. To the extent that the prosecutor contemplated the use of prior convictions in a one-stage recidivist trial, his right to do so is of course established by Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554 , decided only last Term. The fact that the prior convictions turned out to be inadmissible for other reasons involves at the most a later corrected trial error in the admission of evidence. We do not sit as a court of errors and appeals in state cases, and I would affirm the judgment of the state court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423523. Public record. Not legal advice.