People v. Hernandez

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Hernandez

166 N.W.2d 58, 14 Mich. App. 741, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 983

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1968

DocketDocket 5,033

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 166 N.W.2d 58 (People v. Hernandez) 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. Hernandez, 166 N.W.2d 58, 14 Mich. App. 741, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 983 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

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September 21, 1967, after a probation violation hearing, defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to prison.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 revoeation-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. GL Kavanagh, P. J., and Quinn and Miller, JJ., concurred.

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

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September 21, 1967, after a probation violation hearing, defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to prison.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 revoeation-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. GL Kavanagh, P. J., and Quinn and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 N.W.2d 58, 14 Mich. App. 741, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hernandez-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack