Court Opinion

ID: 9850269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:54:20.228359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:34.133682
License: Public Domain

Berry, President,
dissenting in part and concurring in part:
For the reasons stated in the separate opinion filed by me in the case of State of West Virginia ex rel. Sterling Doy Strickland v. G. Kemp Melton, Sheriff of Kanawha County, West Virginia in which I dissented in part and concurred in part I dissent to the statement contained in the majority opinion in this case wherein it is stated: “The reason therefor is that the relator did not have counsel at the revocation of probation hearing and there was no showing that he waived such right.” I concur in the result in the majority opinion in this case because the petitioner did not have counsel at the time he was sen*571tenced as that is part of the trial of a criminal case. As stated in the separate opinion in the Strickland case, the granting of probation and the revocation thereof is all an act of grace granted to one convicted of a crime. In the absence of statutory provisions the probationer is not only not entitled to the assistance of counsel but is not entitled to any hearing on the revocation. Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U. S. 490, 55 S. Ct. 818, 79 L. Ed. 1566.
The West Virginia statute, Code, 62-12-10, as amended, only provides that if a person placed on probation violates the provisions of such probation he shall be “* * * brought before the court, or the judge thereof in vacation, for a prompt and summary hearing.”
I am of the opinion that under the West Virginia law the assistance of counsel is not required in all hearings dealing with the revocation of probation which has been granted to a criminal defendant after sentence has been imposed by the court.