From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berry v. City of Cincinnati

U.S.
Nov 5, 1973
414 U.S. 29 (1973)

Summary

making Argersinger retroactive

Summary of this case from Boag v. Chief of Police

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

No. 73-5245.

Decided November 5, 1973

Persons convicted prior to the decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), are entitled to the constitutional rule enunciated in that case that, absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, an indigent accused may not be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, if he was denied the assistance of counsel, if they allege and prove a bona fide, existing case or controversy sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court.

Certiorari granted; 34 Ohio St.2d 106, 296 N.E.2d 532, reversed.


Petitioner, who was serving a sentence for a misdemeanor offense when Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), was decided, sought relief in the state courts claiming that because Argersinger should be accorded retroactive effect and because his trial and sentencing were uncounseled, his conviction should be invalidated. The Supreme Court of Ohio refused to apply Argersinger to convictions occurring prior to that decision. City of Cincinnati v. Berry, 34 Ohio St.2d 106, 296 N.E.2d 532 (1973). Petitioner was enlarged on bail pending action on his claim and faces reincarceration should the judgment of the Ohio courts remain undisturbed. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed. Those convicted prior to the decision in Argersinger are entitled to the constitutional rule enunciated in that case, Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U.S. 847 (1971); Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 and n. 6 (1971) (opinion of WHITE, J.); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 114 (1967); cf. Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278 (1972), if they allege and prove a bona fide, existing case or controversy sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 50-58 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-238 (1968); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 633-634, n. 2 (1968).

So ordered.


Summaries of

Berry v. City of Cincinnati

U.S.
Nov 5, 1973
414 U.S. 29 (1973)

making Argersinger retroactive

Summary of this case from Boag v. Chief of Police

In Berry... the Court stated that a pre- Argersinger misdemeanant was "entitled to the constitutional rule enunciated in that case" if he could "allege and prove a bona fide, existing case or controversy sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court."

Summary of this case from Linkous v. Jordan

In Berry v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 29, 94 S.Ct. 193, 38 L.Ed.2d 187 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]hose convicted prior to the decision in Argersinger are entitled to the constitutional rule enunciated in that case;... if they allege and prove a bona fide, existing case or controversy sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court."

Summary of this case from Mays v. Harris

In Berry v. Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 29 (1973), the constitutional rule enunciated in Argersinger was held to apply to those convicted before the Argersinger decision who faced incarceration.

Summary of this case from State v. Clough

In Berry v Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 29; 94 S Ct 193; 38 L Ed 2d 187 (1973), a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that persons convicted prior to the decisional date of Argersinger were entitled to the benefit of the rule stated therein "if they allege and prove a bona fide, existing case or controversy sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court".

Summary of this case from People v. Hall
Case details for

Berry v. City of Cincinnati

Case Details

Full title:BERRY v . CITY OF CINCINNATI

Court:U.S.

Date published: Nov 5, 1973

Citations

414 U.S. 29 (1973)
94 S. Ct. 193

Citing Cases

Linkous v. Jordan

The Supreme Court then decided that Argersinger should be applied retroactively, announcing that "[t]hose…

People v. Hall

While defendant's trial in the instant case occurred on January 25, 1972, prior to the decisional date of…