Mempa v. Rhay
389 U.S. 128 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that counsel be provided to a defendant at a post-trial proceeding for revocation of probation where a deferred sentence is imposed, as this is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding.
Facts:
- Jerry Douglas Mempa pleaded guilty to 'joyriding' in Washington state court and was placed on probation for two years, with the imposition of his sentence deferred.
- About four months later, prosecutors moved to revoke Mempa's probation, alleging he had been involved in a burglary.
- At the revocation hearing, Mempa, who was 17 years old, was not represented by counsel, was not asked if he wanted counsel appointed, and was not informed of his right to counsel.
- Mempa admitted his involvement in the burglary, and the court immediately revoked his probation and sentenced him to ten years in prison for the original joyriding conviction.
- Similarly, William Earl Walkling pleaded guilty to burglary, received a deferred sentence, and was placed on probation.
- At Walkling's subsequent probation revocation hearing, his retained counsel failed to appear, and the court proceeded without appointing counsel for him.
- The court revoked Walkling's probation and imposed the maximum sentence of 15 years for his original burglary conviction.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Mempa was convicted in Spokane County Superior Court (a state trial court) and received a deferred sentence.
- William Walkling was convicted in Thurston County Superior Court (a state trial court) and received a deferred sentence.
- After their probations were revoked and sentences imposed in subsequent hearings, both men separately filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus with the Washington Supreme Court.
- The Washington Supreme Court (the state's highest court) denied both petitions, holding that the defendants were not entitled to counsel at their hearings.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to both petitioners and consolidated their cases for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel require a state to provide an attorney to a defendant at a combined probation revocation and deferred sentencing hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. The Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant at every critical stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights may be affected. A deferred sentencing hearing, even when combined with a probation revocation, is a critical stage. The Court reasoned that sentencing is not a mere formality, because counsel can play a crucial role in marshaling facts, introducing evidence of mitigating circumstances to influence the judge's sentencing recommendation, and preserving the defendant's legal rights. For example, under Washington law at the time, certain rights—such as the ability to appeal from a guilty plea or to withdraw that plea—could be lost if not exercised at the deferred sentencing stage, making the presence of counsel essential to protect the defendant's interests.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and extends the principles of Gideon v. Wainwright by explicitly applying the 'critical stage' analysis to post-conviction proceedings. By defining deferred sentencing as a critical stage, the Court affirmed that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not confined to the guilt-determination phase but applies wherever substantial rights of the accused are at stake. This ruling broadened the scope of constitutional protections for criminal defendants, influencing subsequent cases concerning the right to counsel at various post-trial events, such as parole revocation hearings.
Unlock the full brief for Mempa v. Rhay