Leonard v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. H--145--2,H--145--2 |
| Citation | 101 Ariz. 42,415 P.2d 570 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Royal LEONARD, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Arizona, Respondent. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Royal Leonard, in pro. per.
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., James S. Tegart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Royal Leonard filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, asserting that while he was under probation on a charge of aggravated assault his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term in the State Penitentiary at Florence, Arizona. He sets forth, and the State in its response concedes, that counsel was not present at the time petitioner was sentenced.
The sentence was void. Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47, 410 P.2d 658.
The sentence and commitment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County is vacated and set aside and petitioner is ordered discharged from the State Prison at Florence, Arizona.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Walter
...has likewise held that the accused is entitled to counsel at a hearing on revocation of probation and sentencing. Leonard v. State, 101 Ariz. 42, 415 P.2d 570 (1966). However, a proceeding for revocation of probation is not subject to the limitations of a trial and is not governed by the sa......
-
State v. Arce
...235. The defendant was not represented by counsel and the presence of counsel at the time of sentence is required. Leonard v. State, 101 Ariz. 42, 415 P.2d 570 (1966); Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47, 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Johnson v. State, 4 Ariz.App. 336, 420 P.2d 298 (1966); State v. Lindsay,......
-
State v. Sanchez
...clearly shows that the defendant was present with counsel. This complies with the Arizona requirement as set forth in Leonard v. State, 101 Ariz. 42, 415 P.2d 570 (1966). See also Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 The revocation of probation is not subject to the lim......
-
State v. Settle
...court complied with the then known requirements for the revocation of probation. Counsel was present as required by Leonard v. State, 101 Ariz. 42, 415, P.2d 570 (1966). See also Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967). The revocation hearing and sentence was not ar......