What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
McCONNELL v. RHAY, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT.
No. 87,
Misc.
Decided October 14, 1968.
Michael H. Rosen for petitioner in No. 458, Mise.
John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Stephen C. Way, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent in both cases.
Together with No. 458, Misc., Stiltner v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court.
Per Curiam.
The sole issue presented by these cases is whether our decision in Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U. S. 128 (1967), should be applied retroactively.
The facts in both cases are quite similar to those in Mempa. Petitioner Jack D. McConnell pleaded guilty to two counts of grand larceny by check. At a hearing on December 23, 1965, he was placed on probation for five years upon condition that he serve one year in the county jail. He was released from jail the following April, but five months later the prosecuting attorney moved that the December 23 order be revoked, alleging that McConnell had violated the terms of his probation. Two hearings on the motion followed — one on September 29, 1966, and the other on November 23, 1966. As a result of these hearings, McConnell was sentenced to two concurrent 15-year terms. At neither hearing was he represented by counsel or advised of his right to have counsel appointed.
Petitioner Douglas Stiltner pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and grand larceny, and on June 23, 1958, he was placed on probation and sentencing was deferred. As in McConnell’s case, the prosecuting attorney later moved for revocation of this order. Hearings on December 30, 1958, and January 8, 1959, led to the imposition of two concurrent 15-year sentences. Stiltner was neither represented nor advised of his right to have counsel appointed. Although Stiltner was subsequently convicted of another offense and is serving a sentence for that crime, the Washington Supreme Court found that it had the power to fashion appropriate relief, were Mempa v. Rhay applicable.
In habeas corpus proceedings, the Washington Supreme Court properly found that both petitioners’ Sixth Amendment rights were violated at their deferred sentencing hearings. That question was settled by our decision in Mempa. But the court denied relief in both cases, holding that Mempa should not be applied to cases in which probation and deferral or suspension of sentences had been revoked before November 13, 1967, the date upon which Mempa was decided. This was error.
This Court’s decisions on a criminal defendant’s right to counsel at trial, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); at certain arraignments, Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 (1961); and on appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963), have been applied retroactively. The right to counsel at sentencing is no different. As in these other cases, the right being asserted relates to “the very integrity of the fact-finding process.” Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 639 (1965); cf. Roberts v. Russell, 392 U. S. 293 (1968). As we said in Mempa, “the necessity for the aid of counsel in marshaling the facts, introducing evidence of mitigating circumstances and in general aiding and assisting the defendant to present his case as to sentence is apparent.” 389 U. S., at 135. The right to counsel at sentencing must, therefore, be treated like the right to counsel at other stages of adjudication.
Certiorari and the motions to proceed in forma pauperis are granted in both cases, the judgments are reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0