Petitioner contends that a criminal defendant is entitlE to counsel at all crucial stages of the proceeding. United states Constitution, Sixth Amendment; California Constitution Article 1,. §15. Once counsel has become attorney of record all legal steps mustbe taken by the attorney. Petitioner contends that the word "must" when used in this text is not permissive. Generally the attorney controls all decisions affecting trial tactics and court proceeding. (People v. Masterson (1994) 34 CR2d 679.

Petitiner asserts that a criminal defendant is guaranteed the right to the assistance of counsel by the Sixth Amendmnt tot the United States Constitution, and Article 1, section 115 of the California Constitution. Petitioner assert's that t ese constitutional right includes the correlative to represent tion free from any conflict of interest that under mines counsel's loyalty to his or her client.

Petitioner contends that when attorney fees are paid byother than the client lawyer's must ensure that their loyalties Ire reserved solely for the client. California Rules of Proffeional Conduct mandate that the attorney must obtain the client's informed written consent before representation begins, (Set Cal Rules of Prof Cond 3-310(F)(3). Again the word "must" not permissive when used in this text.

The question before this court is, Does a state created ight such as an attorney must obtain a written consent from a cilient when other's pay the attorney's fees, constitute a denial of conflict free counsel, thus denying the petitioner his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The state created right specifically states that the written consent must be obtai ed "before" representation begins. California Rules of Proffe sional Conduct. In this text the State of California indicates that representation does not begin until the written consent is obtained, if a. written consent is not obtained, petitioner was never provided with conflict free unsel, therefore leading to denial of counsel within the good faith meaning of the Sixth amendment and the California Constitutuion.

Does a state-created right to require written consent from a client when others pay the attorney's fees constitute a denial of conflict-free counsel, thus denying the petitioner his Sixth Amendment right to counsel?