This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Mempa (D) was arrested for joyriding in Washington State. He was appointed counsel, and on the advice of counsel plead guilty to joyriding. Based on the plea, the Court convicted him and sentenced him to two years of probation with the imposition of sentence deferred. Four months later, D was arrested for a burglary. D went to the hearing with his stepfather, but without counsel. He was not asked whether he wished counsel to be appointed for him, and no inquiry was made about the attorney who represented D at the first proceeding. D admitted his involvement in the burglary, and a probation officer testified, without cross-examination. The prosecuting attorney moved to have D's probation revoked on the ground that he had been involved in a burglary. The court revoked D's probation and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment but stated that it would recommend to the parole board that Mempa be required to serve only a year. In 1965 D filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Washington Supreme Court, claiming that he had been deprived of his right to counsel at the proceeding at which his probation was revoked, and sentence imposed. The Washington Supreme Court denied the petition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.