Document: 389 U.S. 128 88 S.Ct. 254 19 L.Ed.2d 336 Jerry Douglas MEMPA, Petitioner,v.B. J. RHAY, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary. William Earl WALKLING, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON STATE BOARD OF PRISON TERMS AND PAROLES. Nos. 16, 22. Argued Oct. 11 and 12, 1967. Decided Nov. 13, [Syllabus from pages 128-129 intentionally omitted] Evan L. Schwab, Seattle, Wash., for petitioners. Stephen C. Way, Olympia, respondents. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of Court. 1 These consolidated cases raise question extent right to counsel at time sentencing where has been deferred subject probation. 2 Petitioner Mempa was convicted in Spokane County Superior Court on June 17, 1959, offense 'joyriding,' Wash.Rev.Code § 9.54.020. This conviction based his plea guilty entered with advise court-appointed counsel. He then placed probation two years condition, inter alia, that he first spend 30 days county jail, imposition sentence pursuant §§ 9.95.200, 9.95.210.1 3 About four months later prosecuting attorney moved have petitioner's revoked ground had involved a burglary September 15, 1959. A hearing held October 23, Mumpa, who 17 old time, accompanied by stepfather. not represented asked whether wished appointed him. Nor any inquiry made concerning previously 4 At if it true alleged answered affirmative. officer testified without cross-examination according information petitioner denied participation it. Without asking anything say or evidence supply, court immediately an order revoking sentenced him 10 penitentiary, but stated would recommend parole board be required serve only year.2 5 In 1965 filed pro se petition writ habeas corpus Supreme Court, claiming deprived proceeding which imposed. The 1966, vote six three. Rhay, 68 Wash.2d 882, 416 P.2d 104. We granted certiorari consider questions raised. 386 907, 87 849, 781 (1967). 6 Walkling Thurston 29, 1962, second degree basis advice retained three deferred. As conditions 90 jail make restitution. On May 2, 1963, bench warrant arrest issued report violated terms left State. 7 February 24, 1964, arrested charged forgery grand larceny. After being transferred back brought before revoke requested continuance enable retain week. 18, called appeared lawyer. informed supposed present. waiting 15 minutes went ahead absence offered Whether such request does appear record. 8 presented hearsay testimony effect committed acts 14 separate counts larceny against arrest. thereupon imposed maximum prior conviction. Because failure keep record proceeding, nothing is known as advised appeal. did not, however, take 9 1966 denial combined revocation proceeding. authority decision supra. certiorari, (1967), were argument. 1948 this Townsend Burke, 334 736, 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690, during after coupled 'assumptions criminal materially untrue' defendant case due process. Jackson there conclusion, 'In case, might changed sentence, could taken steps see predicated misinformation misreading records, requirement fair play withheld prisoner.' Id., 741, S.Ct., 1255. Then Moore Michigan, 355 155, 78 191, 167 (1957), process found when intelligently understandingly waive entering guilty, emphasized prejudice stemming crime following entry stated, 'The confined representation trial merits.' 160, 194. Hamilton Alabama, 368 52, 82 157, 114 (1961), appoint arraignment process, notwithstanding fact simply pleaded because under Alabama law certain defenses raised abandoned. See also Reece Georgia, 350 85, 76 167, 100 77 (1955), White Maryland, 373 59, 83 1050, 193 (1963). 12 All foregoing cases, exception White, decided reign Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 86 1595 (1942), accordingly relied various 'special circumstances' applicable. Gideon Wain-wright, 372 335, 792, 799 (1963), overruled Sixth Amendment applied through Due Process Clause Fourteenth applicable States and, accordingly, absolute appointment felony cases. 13 There no occasion enumerate stages required, Townsend, Moore, Hamilton, special circumstances stripped away Gideon, clearly stand proposition indigent every stage substantial rights accused may affected. particular, supra, illustrates critical nature well considered support itself holding applies sentencing.3 Many lower courts concluded extends federal cases.4 State, argues petitioners they originally is, effect, mere formality constituting part It offers fewer opportunities exercise judicial discretion than many other jurisdictions. statute requires judge all person term provided convicted. 9.95.010. actual determination length served Board Prison Terms Paroles within admitted prison. 9.95.040. hand, statute, together prosecutor, furnish recommendation should serve, addition supplying about character individual. 9.95.030. oral argument places considerable weight these recommendations, although way bound them. Obviously recommendations are influential determining resulting necessity aid marshaling facts, introducing mitigating general aiding assisting present apparent. 16 Even more important legal lost exercised stage. For one, provides appeal involving followed can Farmer, 39 675, 237 734 (1951).5 Therefore agreed plead valid defense, probation, result loss While ordinarily appeals less frequent those merits, incidence improperly obtained pleas so slight capable characterized de minimis. See, e.g., United ex rel. Elksnis Gilligan, 256 F.Supp. 244 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1966). Cf. Machibroda States, 487, 510, 473 (1962).6 Likewise statutes provide withdrawn 10.40.175. finds ends justice will served, Shannon, 60 883, 376 646 (1962). undertaking catalog situations lawyer assistance reiterated promise very furnishes desiring withdraw plea. An uncounseled likely unaware opportunity. 18 factors assume increased significance that, happened eventual commission offenses never tried. sum, we do procedure its provisions. Indeed, appears enlightened step forward. decide here must afforded labeled sentencing. purpose unduly burdened follow 20 judgments below reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 21 Reversed remanded. suggests error stating received rather suspended accept court's characterization supported Under impose offense, 9.95.010, along attorney, statement facts deemed relevant. However, actually determines served. Wash.Rev. Code infra, 135. Kadish, Advocate Expert—Counsel Peno-Correctional Process, 45 Minn.L.Rev. 803, 806 (1961). E.g., Martin 182 F.2d 225, A.L.R.2d 1236 (C.A.5th Cir. 1950); McKinney 93 U.S.App.D.C. 222, 208 844 (1953); Nunley 283 651 (C.A.10th 1960). Proctor, 817, 415 634 (1966), modified Farmer rule permit placement (1) contested (2) fine condition generally Newman, Conviction—The Determination Guilt Innocence Trial (1966); Enker, 'Perspectives Plea Bargaining,' President's Commission Law Enforcement Administration Justice, Task Force Report: Courts 108 119

Category: 0