## Facts

- In 1996, Felipe Edgardo Tovar was arrested in Iowa for operating while intoxicated (OWI), a first offense under Iowa law.
- At arraignment, Tovar stated he wished to represent himself and plead guilty.
- The trial court conducted a guilty-plea colloquy, explaining trial rights, that counsel could assist at trial, and that a guilty plea would waive trial-related rights including the right to counsel.
- The court explained the OWI elements, confirmed Tovar’s admission to driving, and noted he did not contest an intoxilyzer result of 0.194.
- The court advised Tovar of the minimum and maximum penalties and accepted the plea; Tovar received the statutory minimum sentence (two days’ jail and a fine).
- In 1998, represented by counsel, Tovar pleaded guilty to second-offense OWI.
- In 2000, Tovar was charged with third-offense OWI (a felony). He sought to prevent use of the 1996 uncounseled conviction to enhance the 2000 charge, arguing his 1996 waiver of counsel was invalid.

## Issues

1. What warnings does the Sixth Amendment require before a court accepts an uncounseled defendant’s guilty plea so that the waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent?
2. Does the Sixth Amendment require specific admonitions that self-representation risks overlooking defenses and forfeits an independent assessment of whether pleading guilty is wise, as a condition for later using the conviction to enhance punishment?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Iowa Supreme Court and remanded.
- The Court held the Sixth Amendment does not require the two specific warnings demanded by the Iowa Supreme Court.
- The Court concluded the 1996 plea colloquy adequately informed Tovar of the nature of the charge, his right to counsel regarding the plea, and the range of allowable punishments.
- Because the 1996 waiver was constitutionally valid, the 1996 conviction could be used to enhance punishment for the later offense.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies at all critical stages of a criminal case, including entry of a guilty plea.
- A waiver of counsel must be knowing and intelligent, assessed in light of the relevant circumstances.
- The Constitution does not require a rigid script for waiver-of-counsel colloquies; required information varies with factors such as the defendant’s sophistication, the charge’s complexity, and the proceeding’s stage.
- For an uncounseled guilty plea, the constitutional minimum is satisfied when the court informs the defendant of: (1) the nature of the charges, (2) the right to counsel regarding the plea, and (3) the range of allowable punishments upon a guilty plea.
- A prior uncounseled conviction may be used to enhance punishment if the record shows a constitutionally valid waiver of counsel.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment sets a baseline for a valid waiver of counsel at a guilty-plea hearing and does not require state-imposed, detailed warnings about the disadvantages of self-representation; because Tovar received constitutionally sufficient advisements in 1996, that conviction could serve as a predicate for enhancement.


Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004)