State v. Paz
Opinion
In re Paz, Roger; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 05-5720; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-KH-541.
Denied.
[347] court of appeal for that court to decide these issues, which include: (a) Whether the video-camera or closed-circuit television procedure used to take this defendant’s guilty plea complies with La.Code Crim. Pro. art. 556.1; (b) Whether that procedure violates the defendant’s right to be physically present at critical stages of the prosecution; and (c) Whether that procedure violates the defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel. See People v. Guttendorf, 309 Ill.App.3d 1044, 723 N.E.2d 838, 243 Ill.Dec. 535 (3d Dist.2000), app. denied, 188 Ill.2d 572, 729 N.E.2d 500, 246 Ill.Dec. 127 (Ill.2000); see also Annotation, Constitutional and Statutory Validity of Judicial Videoconferencing, 115 A.L.R.5th 509 (West 2004).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
964 So. 2d 346 (State v. Paz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.