McConnell v. Rhay

Background

Two men who had pleaded guilty and been placed on probation later faced revocation hearings where they were given prison sentences. At none of those hearings were they represented by a lawyer or told they could have one appointed. The Washington Supreme Court found their Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated under the Court’s earlier decision in Mempa v. Rhay, but refused to grant relief because those revocations happened before Mempa was decided on November 13, 1967.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the Mempa rule — that defendants have a right to counsel at sentencing and certain revocation hearings — must be applied retroactively to cases decided earlier. The Justices explained that the right to a lawyer at sentencing is as fundamental as the right to counsel at trial or other critical stages, and that denying it affects the fairness of fact-finding and punishment. Relying on prior decisions that applied counsel rights retroactively, the Court held that Mempa should also apply retroactively, reversed the lower court judgments, and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with that rule.

Real world impact

The decision means people who were sentenced after probation was revoked without being advised of or given counsel can seek relief even if that occurred before 1967. Courts must treat the right to counsel at sentencing like other fundamental counsel rights and revisit cases as needed. The cases were sent back to state courts to give effect to this ruling.