# Baldasar v. Illinois

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 16, 1980 · 446 U.S. 222

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427890

## Case

- **Full name:** Baldasar v. Illinois
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 16, 1980
- **Citations:** 446 U.S. 222; 100 S. Ct. 1585; 64 L. Ed. 2d 169; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 124
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stewart
- **Judges:** Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Brennan, Stevens, White, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 466 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994).
- Negative treatments: 3
- Distinguished by: 7
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427890

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that misdemeanor convictions may be less reliable than felony convictions because they are obtained through "assembly-line justice" and because jurors may be less scrupulous in applying the reasonable-doubt standard to a minor offense
- holding that prior un-counseled conviction could not increase imprisonment for current offense
- holding that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction cannot be used under an enhanced penalty statute to convert a subsequent misdemeanor into a felony with a prison term
- concluding that convictions valid “for the purposes of their own penalties” should be valid for all purposes, including the enhancement of a subsequent sentence

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stewart,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stevens join,
concurring.
In Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367 , the Court held that “the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require . . . that no indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State has afforded him the right to assistance of appointed counsel in his defense.” Id., at 373-374 .
In this case the indigent petitioner, after his conviction of petit larceny, was sentenced to an increased term of imprisonment only because he had been convicted in a previous prosecution in which he had not had the assistance of appointed counsel in his defense.
It seems clear to me that this prison sentence violated the constitutional rule of Scott v. Illinois, supra, and I, therefore, join the opinion and judgment of the Court. *
It is noteworthy that the brief filed by the State of Illinois in Scott expressly anticipated the result in this case:
“When prosecuting an offense the prosecutor knows that by not requesting that counsel be appointed for defendant, he will he 'precluded, from *225 enhancing subsequent offenses. To the degree that the charging of offenses involves a great deal of prosecutorial discretion and selection, the decision to pursue conviction with only limited use comes within proper scope of that discretion.” Brief for Respondent in Scott v. Illinois , O. T. 1978, No. 77-1177, p. 20 (emphasis added).
Mr. Justice BreNNAN adheres to his dissent in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367, 375 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427890. Public record. Not legal advice.