SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Similar documents
[Practice Tip: See chapter 2 of the ADI Appellate Practice Manual, et seq., for additional information on constructive filing.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLANT S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING BRIEF

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D067962

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE B265917

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT. Defendant COUNT 1

strike convictions are based on the same criminal act. This petition asks that I be

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A114558

Case No. S IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

6 of 11 DOCUMENTS. Guardado v. Superior Court B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Case 2:18-cv R-AGR Document 7 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:26

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHAPTER NINE APPELLATE DIVISION RULES...201

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT. Defendant COUNT 1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT. Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A123145

Centex Homes v. Superior Court (City of San Diego)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED Superior Court of California, County of Orange. 02/ at 11:58:07 AM

Application to Serve as Temporary Judge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D062951

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT. Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

The non-scientific DNA talk: Today s topics

C E R T I F I E D F O R PUB L I C A T I O N IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT B162625

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT 2. TRESPASS TO CHATTEL

CACJ CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A112207

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:14-cv GW-AS Document 6 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:389

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

SELECT ISSUES SURROUNDING COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT. Defendant COUNT 1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT. Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT. Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS

CASENOTE. Filed 7/23/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. Defendant I N F O R M A T I O N S U M M A R Y

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE-CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:14-cv SJO-FFM Document 27 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:773

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Case 3:15-cr BAS Document 166 Filed 03/02/17 PageID.752 Page 1 of 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Plaintiff{s),

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B156171

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A123432

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A121535

Attachment 14 to Form AT-105

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A110076

Sample argument that Estrada retroactivity applies to SB 180

PEOPLE V. HOWARD: ALERT. Reckless Evasion of Police Offense Under Vehicle Code Section Invalidated as a Basis for Second Degree Felony Murder

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Case 3:17-cv VC Document Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 6

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT. Defendant

in furtherance of and in response to its Tentative Decision dated 1/4/2010 addressing various matters

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR B256117

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A113716

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FONTANA DISTRICT. Defendant COUNT 1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California BILL LOCKYER. Attorney General : OPINION : No.

Transcription:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 FAY ARFA, A LAW CORPORATION Fay Arfa, Attorney at Law State Bar No. 01 0 Santa Monica Blvd., #00 Los Angeles, CA 00 Tel.: ( -0 Attorney for Defendant JONES DOE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiff, JONES DOE, Defendant. Case No. EX PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Pen. Code,.. DATE: TIME: LOCATION: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on, 0, at :0 a.m. or as soon as the matter can be heard in Department B of the court located at 01 S. La Cienega Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 00, the defendant will move the court to appoint Fay Arfa as defendant's attorney. This motion is based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities, and all evidence and other matters to be presented at the hearing. Dated: May 1, 0 FAY ARFA Attorney for Defendant 1 EX PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Pen. Code,..

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT FAY ARFA AS COUNSEL I. PENAL CODE SECTION. SUBD. (d PERMITS THIS COURT TO APPOINT COUNSEL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE Penal Code section. subdivision (d provides: (d... [T]he court shall first utilize the services of the public defender to provide criminal defense services for indigent defendants. In the event that the public defender is unavailable and the county and the courts have contracted with one or more responsible attorneys or with a panel of attorneys to provide criminal defense services for indigent defendants, the court shall utilize the services of the county-contracted attorneys prior to assigning any other private counsel. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require the appointment of counsel in any case in which the counsel has a conflict of interest. In the interest of justice, a court may depart from that portion of the procedure requiring appointment of a county-contracted attorney after making a finding of good cause and stating the reasons therefor on the record. (Italics added. II. THIS COURT HAS THE DISCRETION, PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION., TO APPOINT FAY ARFA AS COUNSEL Cases addressing the issue of whether an indigent defendant is entitled to private counsel of his or her choice have held that the appointment of counsel under section. rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and the court's discretion may not be restricted by any fixed policy. (See People v. Horton ( Cal.th,. III. JUDICIAL DISCRETION PERMITS A COURT TO DECIDE A QUESTION BY HER VIEWS OF EXPEDIENCY OR OF THE DEMANDS OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE " 'Judicial discretion is that power of decision exercised to the necessary end of awarding justice based upon reason and law but for which decision there is no special governing statute or rule. Discretion implies that in the absence of positive law or fixed rule the judge is to decide a question by his view of expediency or of the demand of equity and justice... The term implies absence EX PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Pen. Code,..

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking. It imports the exercise of discriminating judgment within the bounds of reason. Discretion in this connection means a sound judicial discretion enlightened by intelligence and learning, controlled by sound principles of law, of firm courage combined with the calmness of a cool mind, free from partiality, not swayed by sympathy or warped by prejudice or moved by any kind of influence save alone the overwhelming passion to do what is just.' " (Harris v. Superior Court ( Cal.d,. IV. IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION, THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD CONSIDER SUBJECTIVE FACTORS AS WELL AS OBJECTIVE FACTORS In exercising its discretion, the trial court should take into account not only the foregoing subjective factors, but also objective factors such as previous representation of defendant by the requested attorney in the underlying or in any other proceeding, any extended relationship between defendant and the requested attorney, the familiarity of the requested attorney with the issues and witnesses in the case, the duplication of time and expense to the county of appointing an attorney other than the requested attorney, and the timeliness of the request. (People v. Chavez (0 Cal.d, ; Harris v. Superior Court, supra, Cal.d at pp. -. EX PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Pen. Code,..

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 DECLARATION OF FAY ARFA I, Fay Arfa, declare: That I am currently retained as the attorney of record for the defendant. That I have been defendant s attorney for nearly a year. That I have reviewed all the discovery, including several audio tapes and police reports. I have also reviewed the police reports in connection with Ms. Jones s prior felony conviction. That there is a substantial issue involving whether the wounds to Kevin Jones accidentally or intentionally inflicted. That I have spent numerous hours studying the case and interviewing witnesses. That I have worked with my court appointed investigator who is also familiar with the case. That I have spent numerous hours investigating this case. That I have spent numerous hours interviewing the defendant as well as members of her family and other witnesses. That I tried the case over a period of six days and I am familiar with the facts and issues in the case. That I have developed a special relationship of trust and respect with the defendant and her family. I declare, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this March, 00 at Los Angeles, California. Fay Arfa, Attorney for Defendant EX PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Pen. Code,..

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 DECLARATION OF JONES DOE I, JONES DOE declare as follows: That I am the defendant in the case. That I am indigent and I have no money or assets. That I would like Fay Arfa to be appointed to represent me in my case. That Fay Arfa has been my attorney for about eight months, since July 00. That I feel safe and comfortable with Fay Arfa as my attorney. That Fay Arfa has communicated with me regularly since and I have explained my case in detail to her. That I trust Fay Arfa completely and I have developed a close bond with her. That I feel that Fay Arfa understands my case and works for my best interests. That I would feel very abandoned and afraid if Fay Arfa did not remain as my attorney. That we have been working together on my defense for nearly eight months. That Fay Arfa has helped me psychologically adjust to the mental strain and pressure of facing serious criminal charges and dealing with the criminal justice system. Based on my relationship with Fay Arfa, I would not be able to place my confidence and trust in another attorney. That I really want Fay Arfa to remain as my attorney. I declare, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this th day of March 00 at Hawthorne, California. JONES DOE, DEFENDANT EX PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Pen. Code,..

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 EX PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Pen. Code,..