Mempa v rhay. Mempa v. Rhay/Opinion of the Court 2019-03-04

Mempa v rhay Rating: 8,6/10 1600 reviews

CJC 111

mempa v rhay

The appropriate federal statute required the presence of the probationer before the court during hearings concerning revocation of probation. I believe that the court made the right decision; parolees should have the right to be aware of accusations take against them. The two foregoing factors assume increased significance when it is considered that, as happened in these two cases, the eventual imposition of sentence on the prior plea of guilty is based on the alleged commission of offenses for which the accused is never tried. Christopher Simmons had a premeditated plan, which included, burglary breaking and entering , robbery and murder. While these rights as to probationers may not be fully spelled out in the federal and state constitutions, it would seem reasonable to conclude that they inhere in those documents, if in no other way than through the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution. At the revocation hearing, petitioner was not represented by counsel, was not asked about his previous court-appointed counsel, or if he wanted counsel. The actual determination of the length of time to be served is to be made by the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles within six months after the convicted person is admitted to prison.


Next

Case of Mempa v. Rhay Essay Example for Free

mempa v rhay

This was achieved due the fact that the probation officer questioned by the probationer about the incident and the parolee admitted his involvement. But the scope of any such inquiry or hearing rests solely in the discretion of the superior court judges of the state of Washington. About four months later the Spokane County prosecuting attorney moved to have petitioner's probation revoked on the ground that he had been involved in a burglary on September 15, 1959. Disparity of standards among the courts in the search, confession and right to counsel cases has long since proven the unwisdom and inefficiency of such a course. A probation officer testified without cross-examination that, according to his information, petitioner had been involved in the burglary and had previously denied participation.

Next

In RE MEMPA v. Rhay :: 1966 :: Washington Supreme Court Decisions :: Washington Case Law :: Washington Law :: US Law :: Justia

mempa v rhay

Which of the following is not a characteristic of probation? The reason should be quite obvious. Alabama 1961 , it was held that failure to appoint counsel at arraignment deprived the petitioner of due process, notwithstanding the fact that he simply pleaded not guilty at that time, because under Alabama law certain defenses had to be raised then or be abandoned. Supreme Court determined that both notice of the charges and a hearing are required in order to revoke an offender's probation. It is true that sentencing in Washington offers fewer opportunities for the exercise of judicial discretion than in many other jurisdictions. It should be noted that the foregoing statute provides that any peace officer or state parole officer may re-arrest a probationer without warrant or other process; furthermore, that the court may thereupon, in its discretion, without notice, revoke and terminate such probation. They also observed the growing number of business establishments such as Internet cafes, laundromats, cafeterias, sari-sari stores and water stations.

Next

Mempa V. Rhay Essay

mempa v rhay

He informed the court that he had retained an attorney who was supposed to be present. The court stated that because Gideon was not charged with a capital offense, under Florida State Law his request was denied. There was no occasion in Gideon to enumerate the various stages in a criminal proceeding at which counsel was required, but Townsend, Moore, and Hamilton, when the Betts requirement of special circumstances is stripped away by Gideon, clearly stand for the proposition that appointment of counsel for an indigent is required at every stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights of a criminal accused may be affected. The offender filed a petition of habeas corpus in the State Supreme Court claiming that he had been denied the right to counsel during the probation revocation hearing, the court denied the petition. However, the deferred sentence statute permits entry of such orders following either a plea of guilty or a verdict of guilty. After a hearing, the judge who had originally sentenced the offender, the judge found that accused had violated his probation conditions by committing a felony.

Next

Mempa v. Rhay, United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court and..., Federal Courts, COURT CASE

mempa v rhay

The court may thereupon in its discretion without notice revoke and terminate such probation. As a result many of them received both letters and phone calls about the case. On September 9th, at approximately 2 a. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions. He informed the court that he had retained an attorney who was supposed to be present. After unsuccessfully seeking post-conviction relief in state court, defendant filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court, claiming that the state judge had violated due process requirements by revoking probation without considering alternatives to incarceration.

Next

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.

mempa v rhay

After a short wait, the court proceeded with the hearing in the absence of counsel and without offering to appoint counsel. In 1965 Mempa filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Washington Supreme Court, claiming that he had been deprived of his right to counsel at the proceeding at which his probation was revoked and sentence imposed. It may be conceded that such a person, by virtue of the criminal conviction, waives or forfeits the benefits of some constitutional rights, e. After being transferred back to Thurston County he was brought before the court on May 12, 1964, for a hearing on the petition by the prosecuting attorney to revoke his probation. 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. It would seem farfetched to suggest that the courts should invade this particular sphere of administrative prerogative and, by judicial fiat, exercise some sort of supervisory authority over existing prison administration, standards and practices.

Next

MEMPA V RHAY

mempa v rhay

Whether he made such a request does not appear from the record. The reason for this legalistic tightrope walking is obscure to me, particularly when considered with the fact that the final judgment and sentence, whether entered with or without an intervening order of deferred sentence, bodes well to deprive an individual of his personal liberty and to forever nullify any opportunity of clearing his record of the conviction. Supreme Court of United States. The judgments below are reversed and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. As the majority opinion inferentially points out, in all instances a probationer appearing before the superior court in a revocation proceeding will ordinarily be given an opportunity to be heard.


Next

In RE MEMPA v. Rhay :: 1966 :: Washington Supreme Court Decisions :: Washington Case Law :: Washington Law :: US Law :: Justia

mempa v rhay

As conditions of his probation he was required to serve 90 days in the county jail and make restitution. Washington State Board of Prison Term and Parole, also on certiorari to the same court. After waiting for 15 minutes, the court went ahead with the hearing in the absence of petitioner's counsel. This conviction was based on his plea of guilty entered with the advise of court-appointed counsel. Burke, 1948 ; Gideon v.

Next

Jack D. McCONNELL v. RHAY. Douglas STILTNER v. RHAY.

mempa v rhay

The defendant, however, now stands barren of a right to the assistance of counsel. While ordinarily appeals from a plea of guilty are less frequent than those following a trial on the merits, the incidence of improperly obtained guilty pleas is not so slight as to be capable of being characterized as de minimis. We are convinced that effective supervision of the probation vehicle by probation officers is a sensitive area, and one not particularly suited to detailed, over-all, or even general judicial supervision. On the other hand, the sentencing judge is required by statute, together with the prosecutor, to furnish the Board with a recommendation as to the length of time that the person should serve, in addition to supplying it with various information about the circumstances of the crime and the character of the individual. But, there seems to be little reason or justification to suppose that such a person waives or forfeits such basic and traditional safeguards as the right to be present at a judicial proceeding designed to revoke his probation, the right to be advised of the nature of the alleged probation violation, the right to present explanatory or mitigating evidence, or the right to be represented by counsel either at the hearing or at the time of imposition and entry of the appealable final judgment and sentence.


Next

Mempa v. Rhay :: 389 U.S. 128 (1967) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

mempa v rhay

Again at the revocation hearing the defendant had council but never showed but the proceedings still took place. Simmons wanted to bond and tie the victim and discard her off the bridge. He was not represented by counsel and was not asked whether he wished to have counsel appointed for him. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The two foregoing factors assume increased significance when it is considered that, as happened in these two cases, the eventual imposition of sentence on the prior plea of guilty is based on the alleged commission of offenses for which the accused is never tried. Over three weeks prior to the trail, the media published the names and addresses of prospective jurors. After waiting for 15 minutes the court went ahead with the hearing in the absence of petitioner's counsel.

Next