No. 18-201

Parviz Montazer v. Parvin R. Montazer

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2018-08-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: appellate-counsel appellate-procedure civil-procedure conflict-of-interest constitutional-protections criminal-contempt criminal-procedure due-process indigent-defendant indigent-rights ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-bias right-to-counsel sixth-amendment transcript-costs
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2018-10-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an indigent defendant in a criminal contempt proceeding has a right to appointed counsel and a free transcript on appeal

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

questions presented are: 1. Is not an appellate court required to appoint cotinsel toan indigent ma criminal case? If so, is not an indigent appellant entitled to the cost of production of the “reporter's transcript”? : 2. Isa California criminal contempt proceeding © _ undér §1209.5, which carries a potential — sentence of 180 days imprisonment and $36,000 penalty, which is subject to Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United State Constitution concluded when sentencing is7 pronounced or when defendant enters a “no: contest plea”? . oo. noe 3. To the extent the contempt action is of a criminal nature, should a defendant prevail on showing: a) that his.counsel’s performance fell below _. .. . prevailing professional standards and b) he was . prejudiced; or only c) that there was a conflict of _ interest between his counsel. and the opposing. — attorney? _ . a a 4. When the trial court announces, in acriminal _ . case, that the opposing counsel is appointed as a Commissioner, who has been working as temporary judge for the same court, does that create a conflict of interest for the attorney . oo representing Pétitioné?;“and thereby, prejudging Se og BBs soTdervdedsd enorreque EO » 8; Is an attorney who . | a iiyto her own admission; igintimidatedbythe = . Se, itty Judge and the oppositioncqupsel inherently = _ a og, ineligetlyeeans qo Tinw HOT MOMITH ce "6. Injshowitigiof all-of.the:above, ce oe ". ¢ abused request, . oo a: while appearing in pro per, to, withdraw;his plea : g OF no contestrvoad JAMOITUTITEHOS VO . So $5 NEOYMMATEMOD BUA | ee WV GMSIMA TeM00 2.08 So ot age atlas PAOD A oo oo oe VIL MEM. VeEVOD BSG ST AOR TMIRD TVAVEIE TV ee . as re BMOIZIVONT vt . og GATMATO ME LIUOHR WETVER YEW ITY = ce a) BRAD ANT GO TMaMNrATA TI _ ‘ co ol ‘tnevelon banoredord [nirton, A ' oo . : _ ehurtesup | oo . : ; of borpo tious otallogqe an jon ab A" : ; mo oo 8 of tnegibai np of lezanos Inidgan ; ts ‘ Yoasa Lerinstra oo, 1. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ii -' TABLE OF CONTENT =...” v INDEX'‘OF APPENDICES ‘" vii

Docket Entries

2018-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
2018-06-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 14, 2018)

Attorneys

Parviz Montazer
Parvis Montazer — Petitioner
Parvis Montazer — Petitioner