State v. Paz

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Paz

964 So. 2d 346, 2007 La. LEXIS 2046, 2007 WL 2834268

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 21, 2007

DocketNo. 2007-KP-1776

StatusPublished

This text of 964 So. 2d 346 (State v. Paz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Paz, 964 So. 2d 346, 2007 La. LEXIS 2046, 2007 WL 2834268 (La. 2007).

Pincite

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.

CALOGERO, C.J., dissents from the denial of the writ application. I would grant the writ and docket the case for oral argument to resolve relevant questions presented by this application, or at least I would grant and remand the case to the

[347]*347court 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).

JOHNSON, J., would grant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

CALOGERO, C.J., dissents from the denial of the writ application. I would grant the writ and docket the case for oral argument to resolve relevant questions presented by this application, or at least I would grant and remand the case to the

[347]*347court 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).

JOHNSON, J., would grant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

964 So. 2d 346, 2007 La. LEXIS 2046, 2007 WL 2834268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-paz-la-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack