William H. Flint v. Carl Hocker, Warden, Nevada State Prison

Good Law
462 F.2d 590·1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9380
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 24, 197271-1056California933 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hufstedler, J.

The issue on appeal is this: Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution require that an indigent criminal defendant be afforded the assistance of counsel at a Nevada probation revocation hearing? We hold that they do.

On June 1, 1962, Flint pleaded guilty to a first degree burglary charge for which he was sentenced by a state court in Nevada to a term of one to fifteen years. The court suspended the sentence on June 19, 1962, and placed Flint on two years’ probation. On June 2, 1964, the state court held a probation revocation hearing. Flint had no counsel, and he was not advised of any right to the appointment of counsel. Probation was revoked, and he was sent to state prison to commence serving his one-to-fifteen-year sentence.

After Flint exhausted his state remedies, he sought habeas relief in the district court. The district court denied his petition, and this appeal followed.

Mempa v. Rhay (1967) 389 U.S. 128 , 88 S.Ct. 254 , 19 L.Ed.2d 336 held that the State of Washington was required to furnish counsel to an indigent defendant at a probation revocation hearing at which the petitioner’s sentence was imposed. Under Washington procedure, sentencing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.