The Constitution guarantees people the right to an attorney if they are charged with a crime, but more than 50 years after that right was established, courts are still hashing out just how far those protections go and whether they cover every stage of a criminal case.

In the latest case sorting out these questions, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that a man challenging his sentence as illegal should have had an attorney appointed for him, and that the trial court was wrong to force him to represent himself.

The state's high court found on April 12 that under Iowa law, people had a right to counsel throughout a criminal case, even after the original trial and initial appeal are done, and that this protected the man at the center of this case, Michael Jefferson.

"A motion to correct illegal sentence is a stage of the original criminal case," the court said. "Such a motion is not filed as a separate action."

According to the court's decision, Jefferson, who pled guilty in 2007 to raping a 14-year-old when he was 21, was placed on the sex offender registry, sentenced to up to 10 years in prison and given a special sentence under Iowa law that in effect meant he would remain on parole for life.

He was arrested two years after his release for parole violations, including allegedly giving false information to the sex offender registry, and ultimately sentenced to five additional years in prison, the decision said.

At this point, the decision said, Jefferson filed a new motion in 2016 arguing that the state's special sentencing law for sex offenders with its parole-for-life provision was unconstitutional. He also asked for a court-appointed attorney but was denied, according to the decision.

The trial court judge ultimately rejected Jefferson's arguments that the law was unconstitutionally vague and violated the rules against cruel and unusual punishment, among other arguments, the decision said.

But the Iowa Supreme Court revived the case this month, saying Jefferson should have had a court-appointed attorney. It said that even though the state's laws regarding representation are vague on this point, the high court has typically held that defendants have a right to counsel at all stages of a criminal case.

Iowa is one of several states that have come to similar conclusions. In some states, such as Tennessee, the state law itself spells out that state court judges should appoint counsel in situations such as challenging a potentially illegal sentence. In other states, the courts have stepped in and extended those protections, including Maryland, where the state high court extended these protections in 2018.

And other states have recently found that the right to counsel exists in other circumstances, such as Nevada, where the high court guaranteed a right to counsel in a habeas corpus petition when a man challenged aspects of his trial after being convicted.

However, courts and states have not always held that the right to counsel applies in all situations.

The U.S. Supreme Court first held in 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright that people facing criminal charges have a right to an attorney in state and federal courts. In addition, different states have also extended those protections even beyond what the Supreme Court has promised.

But the Supreme Court in recent years has also found exceptions to the right to counsel. For instance, in 2013, the high court said in Montejo v. Louisiana that police officers had not violated a defendant's right to counsel by questioning him after the court had appointed him an attorney because the defendant hadn't invoked his right to counsel during the questioning.

And there have also been state cases that have placed similar limits on state-specific protections, which can augment the Supreme Court's baseline standards. However, some states have made their right to counsel rules more expansive.

In Iowa, Kevin Cmelik of the state's attorney general's office explained that his office had always interpreted the state's rules to mean that the court was only required to appoint counsel through the original trial and appeal, but that he was not surprised that the high court took a different approach in the Jefferson case.

"The rule is ambiguous," he acknowledged.

But while the rule will provide more protection for people challenging their sentences, Cmelik said that it will also put a strain on Iowa's Indigent Defense Fund, which funds public defender services and which is already overburdened.

"There's been a significant increase in these kinds of [challenges]," he said. "So more will have to be expended."

Counsel for Jefferson did not respond to a request for comment.

--Editing by Brian Baresch.

Have a story idea for Access to Justice? Reach us at accesstojustice@law360.com.