## Facts

- Jon Richard Argersinger, an indigent defendant, was charged in Florida with carrying a concealed weapon, punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
- He was tried in a bench trial without appointed counsel.
- The court convicted him and sentenced him to 90 days in jail.
- Argersinger sought habeas corpus relief, asserting that the absence of counsel prevented him from adequately presenting defenses.
- The Florida Supreme Court denied relief, concluding appointed counsel was constitutionally required only for “non-petty” offenses punishable by more than six months’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a misdemeanor or “petty” offense when incarceration may be imposed.
2. Whether the constitutional right to counsel depends on the offense’s classification (felony/misdemeanor or “petty”) or instead on the consequence of imprisonment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held that no person may be sentenced to incarceration following a criminal prosecution, whether for a felony or misdemeanor, unless represented by counsel at trial or unless counsel was validly waived.
- The Court rejected using the jury-trial line for “serious” offenses as the measure of when counsel is required.
- Because Argersinger was sentenced to jail after an uncounseled trial, the conviction could not support the jail sentence under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Legal Principles

- The right to counsel in state criminal prosecutions applies whenever the defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, regardless of the offense label.
- A state may not deprive an accused of liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution in which the accused was denied counsel, absent a knowing and intelligent waiver.
- The constitutional requirement of counsel is independent of whether the Constitution requires a jury trial for the offense.
- Misdemeanor proceedings can involve legal and factual complexity sufficient to make counsel necessary to ensure a fair trial when incarceration is imposed.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that an indigent defendant may not be jailed for any offense after an uncounseled conviction unless the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel, extending the right-to-counsel protection to misdemeanor cases resulting in actual imprisonment.


Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)