MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is confined in California Men’s Colony, Los Padres, California, under indeterminate sentence imposed on June 9, 1961, for second degree burglary by the Superior Court, Butte County, California, following “plea of guilty with promise of jail time.” [Paragraph 6(b), petition.]

No appeal was perfected because of alleged coercion by counsel. [Paragraph 9(a), petition.]

The grounds for relief stated in paragraph 10 are:

Previous Habeas Corpus petitions on the same grounds were denied by the Superior Court of Butte County and the California District Court of Appeals, but it does not appear that the issues have been presented to or passed on *206 by the Supreme Court of California. [Paragraph 15(b), petition.] Petitioner has not, therefore, exhausted his State remedies. Title 28, Section 2254(b), U. S.C.; and Deitch v. Maxwell, 337 F.2d 424 (6 C.A. 1964).

Petitioner’s complaint is based on revocation of his parole without representation by counsel. On Page 4-d of an unnumbered and undated document attached to the within petition, entitled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, he states he was placed under arrest by his Parole Officer on February 27, 1968, charged with violation of parole conditions 5B (by consuming alcohol) and 11 (improper conduct with children). He states he was taken before the Parole Board and in less than ten minutes he was found to have violated his parole. He further asserts “* * * that he was not guilty of any wrongdoing nor of the violations complained.” [Page 4-d.]

The Court of Appeals of this Circuit, in Dunn v. California Dept. of Corrections, 401 F.2d 340, 342 (9 C.A. 1968), states:

See also Rose v. Haskins, 388 F.2d 91, 95 (6 C.A., 1968).

In Mead v. California Adult Authority, 415 F.2d 767, 768 (9 C.A. 1969), the Court says:

The Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, in Williams v. Patterson, 389 F.2d 374, 75 (1968), in holding a defendant had no constitutional right to appear at a parole hearing with counsel, discussed the ruling of the Supreme Court in Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 , 88 S.Ct. 254 , 19 L.Ed.2d 336 , pointing to the fact that in that case the imposition of sentence had been suspended and the defendant placed on probation. In the Mempa ease, probation, not parole, was revoked and the defendant thereupon sentenced. In the case at bar, as in the case of Williams v. Dunbar, 377 F.2d 505, 506 (9 C.A. 1967), we are not concerned with sentencing.

As pointed out by Judge Zirpoli in Ellhamer v. Wilson, No. 46545, decided September 12, 1969, U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., at page 14 of the typed opinion:

The indeterminate sentence laws of California have been declared constitutional on more than one occasion. *207 Bennett v. California, 406 F.2d 36, 38 (9 C.A. 1969), and the numerous cases there cited.

For the reasons noted above the within petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking relief from the Supreme Court of California.