In Burgett v. Texas (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prior conviction could not be used to enhance punishment in a subsequent trial if the defendant was not represented by counsel during the initial proceeding, and did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. The case involved William Burgett who had been convicted of felony theft in Texas, with his sentence increased due to previous convictions where he hadn't been represented by an attorney nor waived this right. The court held that using such past convictions violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as it presumed guilt without fair trial standards being met previously. This decision extended Gideon v Wainwright’s guarantee of legal representation for all serious criminal charges into sentencing procedures for repeat offenders.

In the dissenting opinion for Burgett v. Texas, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to exclude evidence of a prior conviction due to lack of counsel was an overextension of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). He contended that this ruling would lead to unnecessary complications in future cases and potentially undermine the finality of many previous convictions. Harlan believed that while it is important for defendants to have legal representation during their trials, there should be limits on how far back these protections extend retroactively. He also expressed concern about potential abuses by defendants who might claim they were not properly represented in past proceedings as a strategy to avoid harsher sentences for repeat offenses.