## Facts

- In 1953, Forrest S. Tucker was tried in federal district court for armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and was convicted after eyewitness identification evidence; Tucker testified and offered an alibi.
- During cross-examination, the prosecution impeached Tucker with three prior felony convictions, which he acknowledged: Florida (1938), Louisiana (1946), and Florida (1950).
- At sentencing, the judge conducted a hearing, gave explicit attention to Tucker’s prior record, and imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 25 years.
- Years later, a state court determined that Tucker’s 1938 Florida and 1946 Louisiana convictions were constitutionally invalid because he lacked counsel, was not advised of the right to counsel, and did not knowingly and intelligently waive counsel, rendering them invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright.
- Tucker sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that use of the invalid convictions tainted both the trial (impeachment) and the sentence.
- The district court treated the impeachment use as error but harmless given the strength of the government’s evidence, and denied relief.
- The Ninth Circuit agreed the verdict stood but remanded for resentencing without consideration of the invalid convictions.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari on whether resentencing was required and affirmed the remand.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal sentence must be reconsidered when the sentencing judge explicitly relied on prior convictions later conclusively determined to be constitutionally invalid due to Gideon right-to-counsel violations.
2. Whether the validity of the conviction can be maintained while still requiring resentencing when unconstitutional prior convictions may have increased the sentence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment requiring remand for resentencing.
- The Court held that Tucker’s sentence could not stand because it was founded, at least in part, on prior convictions that were constitutionally invalid for denial of the right to counsel.
- The Court accepted that the trial error from impeachment use of the invalid convictions did not require reversal of the guilty verdict, but treated sentencing as a separate inquiry.
- The proper remedy was resentencing in the district court without reliance on the invalid convictions.

## Legal Principles

- A sentencing court’s broad discretion does not permit imposition of a sentence based, even in part, on misinformation of constitutional magnitude.
- Prior convictions obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (as recognized in Gideon) are constitutionally infirm and may not be used to increase punishment.
- When the record shows the sentencing judge gave explicit weight to unconstitutional prior convictions, due process requires resentencing free of those convictions.

## Conclusion

The Court required resentencing where the original sentence was influenced by prior convictions later determined to be unconstitutional for denial of counsel, while leaving the underlying federal conviction intact because the impeachment error at trial did not undermine the verdict.


United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972)