Dorman v. United States

Background

In 1973 a man, Frank Dorman, was sentenced in federal court to three years for violating travel restrictions on his bond and two concurrent seven-year terms for transporting forged checks across state lines. The judge noted Dorman’s “very, very substantial” record of prior convictions. A presentence report, which incorporated an FBI summary, listed those state convictions but did not say, and it was not determined, whether Dorman had a lawyer for those earlier prosecutions. Dorman asked the courts to remand the case for a determination of whether the prior convictions were obtained without counsel and therefore should not have been used at sentencing.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court denied review and left the lower court’s ruling intact, which had held that Dorman waived any objection by failing to challenge the presentence report. In a dissent, Justice Douglas emphasized prior decisions that bar using convictions obtained without counsel to increase punishment or otherwise disadvantage a defendant. He argued the Government should bear the burden of checking conviction records and proving that counsel was provided before a sentencing judge relies on those prior convictions.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the federal sentence remains in force and the defendant would need to mount separate collateral challenges to each state conviction under the Fourth Circuit’s practice. Justice Douglas warned that forcing defendants into multiple proceedings is unfair and inefficient and suggested a single, government-led inquiry would better protect defendants’ rights.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas dissented and would have granted review and reversed, imposing on the Government the duty to show the constitutional validity of prior convictions used to enhance sentences.