People v. Hazen

19 Mich. App. 576
CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 28, 1969
DocketDocket No. 6,609
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 Mich. App. 576 (People v. Hazen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Hazen, 19 Mich. App. 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s probationary sentence was revoked at a hearing during which he was not represented by counsel. The trial judge did not advise him of his right to counsel.

[577]*577Mempa v. Rhay (1967), 389 US 128 (88 S Ct 254, 19 L Ed 2d 336) requires that the court advise one accused of probation violation of his right to he represented by counsel and, if indigent, to the appointment of assigned counsel. People v. Marshall (1969), 16 Mich App 578; cf. People v. Brooks (1969), 16 Mich App 759.

The revocation of the defendant’s probation and sentence to prison is set aside and the cause is remanded for a hearing on the probation violation charge at which the defendant shall be advised of his right to he represented by counsel and, if indigent, to the appointment of assigned counsel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Hazen
172 N.W.2d 860 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Mich. App. 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hazen-michctapp-1969.