Court Opinion

ID: 1611444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-30 06:55:49.707203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:01.412700
License: Public Domain

14 Mich. App. 741 (1968)
166 N.W.2d 58
PEOPLE
v.
HERNANDEZ
Docket No. 5,033.
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Decided December 19, 1968.
Maurice Black, for defendant on appeal.
PER CURIAM:
September 21, 1967, after a probation violation hearing, defendant's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to prison. Defendant was not represented by counsel at the revocation hearing; he was not advised of his right to counsel; nor was it determined whether or not *742 defendant desired counsel. On September 21, 1967, the law did not require that defendant be represented by counsel at a probation violation hearing nor that he be advised of his right to counsel. On the basis of Mempa v. Rhay (1967), 389 US 128 (88 S Ct 254, 19 L Ed 2d 336), defendant appeals and attacks the validity of the probation revocation and sentence.
Mempa, supra, was decided November 13, 1967, and it established that counsel must be afforded at a revocation-of-probation hearing that includes sentencing. McConnell v. Rhay (1968) 393 US 2 (89 S Ct 32, 21 L Ed 2d 2), decided October 14, 1968, made the Mempa doctrine retroactive.
Defendant's sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a probation violation hearing with counsel present, unless defendant intelligently waives counsel for such hearing.
T.G. KAVANAGH, P.J., and QUINN and MILLER, JJ., concurred.