386 [ var d=new Date(); We are asking this Court to reverse those decisions. Whether he made such a request does not appear from the record. 16, 68 Wash.2d 882, 416 P.2d 104; No.
ReDiaz, Subscribe to Cases that cite 389 U. S. 128, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE.
Petitioner Jerry Douglas Mempa was convicted in the Spokane County Superior Court on June 17, 1959, of the offense of "joyriding," Wash.Rev.Code § 9.54.020.
A year later petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition with the State Supreme Court, claiming a denial of the right to counsel at the combined probation revocation and sentencing proceeding. The court denied the petition. At the hearing, a probation officer presented hearsay testimony to the effect that petitioner had committed the acts alleged in the 14 separate counts of forgery and 14 separate counts of grand larceny that had been charged against petitioner previously at the time of his arrest. the petitioner of due process, notwithstanding the fact that he simply pleaded not guilty at that time, because, under Alabama law, certain defenses had to be raised then or be abandoned. In May, 1966, Walkling filed a habeas corpus petition with the Washington Supreme Court, claiming denial of his right to counsel at the combined probation revocation and sentencing proceeding.
We granted certiorari, 386 U.S. 907 (1967), and the cases were consolidated for argument. Over a year later he was arrested for forgery and grand larceny allegedly committed while he was on probation. [Footnote 2], In 1965, Mempa filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Washington Supreme Court, claiming that he had been deprived of his right to counsel at the proceeding at which his probation was revoked and sentence imposed.
22, petitioner was convicted of second degree burglary following his guilty plea entered with the advice of his retained counsel, and was placed on probation for three years, imposition of sentence being deferred. The judgments below are reversed and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. to three. He was charged with joyriding, which in the State of Washington essentially is stealing a car. He did not, however, take an appeal.
[389 Mempa v. Rhay, 68 Wash.2d 882, 416 P.2d 104. Mempa v. Rhay, 68 Wash. 2d 882, 416 P.2d 104.
368
Because of the failure of the State to keep a record of the proceeding, nothing is known as to whether Walkling was advised of his right to appeal. In May 1966 Walkling filed a habeas corpus petition with the Washington Supreme Court, claiming denial of his right to counsel at the combined probation revocation and sentencing proceeding.
A hearing was held in the Spokane County Superior Court on October 23, 1959. The court denied the petition. Footnote 4
Wash. Rev. two cases, the eventual imposition of sentence on the prior plea of guilty is based on the alleged commission of offenses for which the accused is never tried. It's also called probation in State of Washington. An attorney was appointed to represent him and he entered the charge -- excuse me. 22, Walkling v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, also on certiorari to the same court.
Jerry Douglas Mempa. Code 9.95.040. We granted certiorari, The applicable statute requires the trial judge in all cases to sentence the convicted person to the maximum term provided by law for the offense of which he was convicted. In No. On February 24, 1964, Walkling was arrested and charged with forgery and grand larceny. 133-137. 849, 17 L.Ed.2d 781 (1967), and the … After being transferred back to Thurston County, he was brought before the court on May 12, 1964, for a hearing on the petition by the prosecuting attorney to revoke his probation. We assume that counsel appointed for the purpose of the trial or guilty plea would not be unduly burdened by being requested to follow through at the deferred sentencing stage of the proceeding. (c) The services of counsel at the deferred sentencing stage are necessary to ensure that certain rights, such as that of appeal, are seasonably asserted, and to afford the defendant the substantial assistance which may be necessary in various other situations at that stage.
At the hearing Mempa was asked if it was true that he had been involved in the alleged burglary and he answered in the affirmative. 386 U.S. 907 (1967). chanrobles.com-red. All we decide here is that a lawyer must be afforded at this proceeding whether it be labeled a revocation of probation or a deferred sentencing. Mempa v. Rhay, 68 Wash. 2d 882, 416 P.2d 104.
The Washington Supreme Court denied the petition on June 23, 1966, by a vote of six We granted certiorari to consider the questions raised.
5th Cir. Since they present identical issues with only differences in facts, we ask leave of the Court to consolidate these cases for argument. U.S. 128, 134]
The imposition of sentence was deferred under Washington State law. He acknowledged his involvement in the alleged burglary. ] See generally Newman, Conviction - The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial (1966); Enker, "Perspectives on Plea Bargaining," in The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Courts 108-119 (1967). We granted certiorari to consider the questions raised. As conditions of his probation, he was required to serve 90 days in the county jail and make restitution. See, e. g., United States ex rel.
For one, Washington law provides that an appeal in a case involving a plea of guilty followed by probation can only be taken after sentence is imposed following revocation of probation. My opponent Mr. Way joins in this request.
Wash. 2d 675, 237 P.2d 734 (1951). 372 The court, without further questioning petitioner, thereupon revoked his probation and, in accordance with state law, imposed the maximum sentence of 10 years, but stated that it would recommend to the parole board that he serve only one year. 355 He did not, however, take an appeal. Evan L. Schwab, by appointment of the Court, Code 9.54.020. Under Washington procedure, the trial judge is required by statute to impose the maximum sentence provided by law for the offense, Wash.Rev.Code § 9.95.010, but is also required, along with the prosecuting attorney, to make a recommendation to the parole board of the time that the defendant should serve, accompanied by a statement of the facts concerning the crime and any other information about the defendant deemed relevant. At the hearing, Mempa was asked if it was true that he had been involved in the alleged burglary, and he answered in the affirmative. [389 As conditions of his probation he was required to serve 90 days in the county jail and make restitution. In Gideon v. Wainwright, Mempa v. Rhay Case Brief - Rule of Law: "A lawyer must be afforded at [a] proceeding whether it [is] labeled a revocation of probation or deferred sentencing. (1967). On the ground that petitioner had thereafter been involved in a burglary, the prosecutor about four months later moved to have petitioner's probation revoked. (1962). ] See Kadish, The Advocate and the Expert - Counsel in the Peno-Correctional Process, 45 Minn. L. Rev. The petition was denied on the authority of the prior decision in Mempa v. Rhay, supra. See also Reece v. Georgia, The court asked Jerry Mempa if he had been involved in this alleged new violation of probation which in this case was burglary. [Footnote 6], Likewise, the Washington statutes provide that a plea of guilty can be withdrawn at any time prior to the imposition of sentence, Wash.Rev.Code § 10.40.175, State v. Farmer, supra, if the trial judge, in his discretion, finds that the ends of justice will be served, State v. Shannon, 60 Wash.2d 883, 376 P.2d 646 (1962).
The Washington Supreme Court denied his petition. Because of the failure of the State to keep a record of the proceeding, nothing is known as to whether Walkling was advised of his right to appeal. Mempa v. Rhay, 68 Wash. 2d 882, 416 P.2d 104. 386 U.S. 907 (1967). [ 4 244 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1966). On May 2, 1963, a bench warrant for his arrest was issued based on a report that he had violated the terms of his probation and had left the State. Code 9.95.010, but is also required, along with the prosecuting attorney, to make a recommendation to the parole board of the time that the defendant should serve accompanied by a statement of the facts concerning the crime and any other information about the defendant deemed relevant.
Six years later, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the State Supreme Court claiming that he had been denied the right to counsel at the proceeding at which his probation was revoked and sentence imposed. He informed the court that he had retained an attorney who was supposed to be present. Academic Content, PETITIONER:
Wash. Rev. Four months later, the county prosecutor moved to revoke Mempa’s probation based on his involvement in a burglary.
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from 47 Bergen St--Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA, Service In particular, Townsend v. Burke, supra, illustrates the critical nature of sentencing in a criminal case and might well be considered to support by itself a holding that the right to counsel applies at sentencing. The State suggests that the Supreme Court of Washington was in error in stating that Mempa received a deferred, rather than a suspended, sentence, but we accept that court's characterization of the sentence as supported by the record. Footnote 3
U.S. 128, 133]
1950); McKinney v. United States, 93 U.S. App. A year later, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition with the State Supreme Court, claiming a denial of the right to counsel at the combined probation revocation and sentencing proceeding. 1.
These consolidated cases raise the question of the extent of the right to counsel at the time of sentencing where the sentencing has been deferred subject to probation. 386 These cases present a virtually identical issue to this Court, namely, whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment confers the right to counsel during probation revocation proceedings and at the sentencing which follows. Pp.
Over a year later, he was arrested for forgery and grand larceny allegedly committed while he was on probation.