Appellant appeals from an order granting appellee’s petition for a writ of ha-beas corpus, contending that the district court erred in allocating the burden of proof on the question of appellee’s comprehension of the consequences of his guilty plea.

We do not reach the appellee’s contention, because we conclude that affirmance of the order is required by Schram v. Cupp (9th Cir. 1970) 436 F.2d 692, holding that a guilty plea entered without counsel and without a valid waiver of counsel cannot be sustained. The record in this case cannot be distinguished from that in Schram on the waiver issue.

The order is affirmed.