Register | Lost your password?

CaseBriefs

Mempa v. Rhay

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 389 U.S. 128, 88 S. Ct. 254, 19 L. Ed. 2d 336, 1967 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary. A joy rider had his probation revoked on the grounds of a previous burglary. He did not have counsel.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. “A lawyer must be afforded at [a] proceeding whether it [is] labeled a revocation of probation or deferred sentencing.”


Facts. Petitioner Mempa pled guilty for “joyriding”. He was sentenced to two years probation on the condition that he spend 30 days in jail and the sentence be deferred. Four months later, the Spokane County prosecutor moved to have the petitioner’s probation revoked on the grounds that he had been involved in a burglary during his probation. At the subsequent hearing, petitioner was unrepresented by counsel. He admitted to the burglary, which was confirmed by his probation officer. The petitioner’s probation was revoked.

Issue. Whether “the right to counsel [extends to] the time of sentencing where the sentencing has been deferred subject to probation.”

Content Type: Brief


Comments are closed.