In Re Turrieta

WHITE, J.

Albert M. Bendich and H. Leroy Cannon seek a writ of habeas corpus for and on behalf of Lucy Turrieta, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, on the ground that she was not properly advised of her right to counsel (Cal. Const., art I, § 13) in proceedings for sentencing following the revocation of her probation after conviction.

The petitioner, on November 7, 1957, in justice court, pleaded guilty to two charges of petty theft. The record shows that she was advised of her legal rights, and an affidavit of the trial judge satisfactorily discloses that she, at that time, waived counsel. On December 3, 1957, proceedings were suspended, and she was placed on probation for two years. On November 6, 1959, almost two years later, her probation was revoked for violation of one of the conditions thereof, and the court then sentenced her to six months in the county jail. The petition states, and opposing counsel do not dispute, that

[819]

the petitioner was not advised of her right to counsel at the time sentence was pronounced.

While the constitutional right to counsel does not apply to a revocation of probation (see

In re Davis,

37 Cal.2d 872 [236 P.2d 579];

In re Dearo,

96 Cal.App.2d 141 [214 P.2d 585]), there can be no doubt that the right applies to proceedings for the pronouncement of judgment after revocation of probation granted without imposing sentence.

(In re Boyce,

51 Cal.2d 699 [336 P.2d 164];

In re Roberts,

40 Cal.2d 745 [255 P.2d 782];

In re Levi,

39 Cal.2d 41 [244 P.2d 403].) The right, however, is subject to waiver and the question in the present case is whether the petitioner, having waived her right to counsel in November 1957, thereby waived her right for the purpose of the subsequent proceedings, two years later, wherein sentence was imposed.