389 U.S. 128 (1967)
In June 1959, Jerry Douglas Mempa pleaded guilty in Spokane County Superior Court to joyriding.1 With the advice of appointed counsel, he received a deferred sentence and two years of probation that included a thirty-day jail term.2 Four months later, the prosecuting attorney moved to revoke Mempa’s probation based on his alleged involvement in a September burglary.3 At the October 23, 1959 revocation hearing, the seventeen-year-old Mempa appeared with his stepfather but without counsel.4 The court did not inquire whether he wished to have counsel appointed.5 Mempa admitted involvement in the burglary.6 A probation officer gave uncross-examined hearsay testimony about the incident.7 The court immediately revoked probation and imposed a ten-year sentence while recommending that the parole board require only one year of service.8
In 1965 Mempa filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the Washington Supreme Court asserting denial of counsel at the revocation and sentencing proceeding.9 That court denied relief in June 1966.10
Separately, William Earl Walkling pleaded guilty in October 1962 in Thurston County Superior Court to second-degree burglary with retained counsel.11 He received a deferred sentence and three years of probation conditioned on ninety days in jail and restitution.12 After a bench warrant issued in May 1963 for probation violations including leaving the state, Walkling was arrested in February 1964 on forgery and grand-larceny charges. He was brought before the court in May 1964 for the revocation hearing.13 He obtained a one-week continuance to retain counsel but appeared without an attorney on May 18.14 The court proceeded despite his retained counsel’s absence and offered no appointed counsel.15 A probation officer presented hearsay testimony concerning fourteen counts each of forgery and grand larceny.16 The court revoked probation and imposed a fifteen-year sentence.17
Walkling filed a habeas corpus petition in the Washington Supreme Court in May 1966.18 The court denied it on the authority of its earlier decision in Mempa’s case.19 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases in 1967 and consolidated them for argument.20
Whether the right to counsel extends to a proceeding at which a deferred sentence is imposed following revocation of probation?21
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires appointment of counsel at every stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights of the accused may be affected, including sentencing.22
Yes. The petitioners in these consolidated cases were denied counsel at proceedings that combined probation revocation with the imposition of deferred sentences, directly implicating the rule.23 In Mempa’s case, the seventeen-year-old defendant appeared at the October 1959 hearing without counsel and the court did not inquire about appointment, leading to immediate revocation and sentencing based on his admission and the probation officer’s uncross-examined testimony.24 Similarly, Walkling appeared without his retained counsel at the May 1964 hearing, where the court heard hearsay evidence on multiple forgery and larceny counts before imposing the fifteen-year sentence.25
These proceedings affected substantial rights because the judge’s recommendation to the parole board influenced the actual time served.26 Washington law made this the point at which appeals from guilty pleas and motions to withdraw pleas could be pursued.27 Therefore, the absence of counsel violated the Sixth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.28
The right to counsel extends to a proceeding at which a deferred sentence is imposed following revocation of probation, requiring reversal of the judgments below.29