From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ketchum

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Jan 31, 2002
ID No.: 86011157DI (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2002)

Opinion

ID No.: 86011157DI

Date Submitted: January 17, 2002

Date Decided: January 31, 2002

Upon Defendant's Motion for transcripts:

DENIED.


ORDER

This ___ day of January, 2002, it appears to the Court that:

1. Defendant Kevin Ketchum Sr. has motioned the Court for an Order directing that he be furnished with copies, to be provided at the expense of the State, of the "denial of sentence reduction/modification, dated 11/14/01, in order that Plaintiff may properly appeal the Court's denial."

2. In his Motion for Transcripts Defendant has not stated how these transcripts will assist him with the appeal to the Supreme Court, nor has he alleged any specific errors by this Court in denying his motion for sentence reduction/modification. Defendant has failed to identify any fundamental rights that were allegedly violated or a set of facts upon which relief might be granted.

3. The right of a criminal defendant to the provision of a free transcript is governed by statute, specifically, Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(d)(3) which states: "The judge may order the preparation of a transcript of any part of the prior proceedings in the case needed to determine whether the movant may be entitled to relief." Therefore it is within the discretion of the judge who has examined the motion and contents of the record to determine whether to order the preparation of a transcript of any part of the proceedings. "Doran and Bordley make clear that when the defendant offers no factual basis and fails to clearly identify the fundamental rights that were violated, the Court will find the defendant's claim `frivolous' and deny the motion."

Doran, supra at 2 (citing State v. Bordley, Del.Super., Cr.A. No. IK85-05-002, Steele, J. (Oct. 26, 1989) (ORDER) at 4).

State v. Boardley, Del.Super., Cr.A. No. IN90-02-0233, Barron, J. (Nov. 6, 1992) (ORDER) at 2-3.

4. Defendant has not made the showing required for this Court to find that his transcripts are "needed to decide the issue." Accordingly, because Defendant has failed to offer facts in support of his request, Defendant's Motion for Transcripts to be provided to him at no cost is hereby DENIED.

United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 330 (1976).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

State v. Ketchum

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Jan 31, 2002
ID No.: 86011157DI (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2002)
Case details for

State v. Ketchum

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF DELAWARE v. KEVIN KETCHUM SR

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Jan 31, 2002

Citations

ID No.: 86011157DI (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2002)

Citing Cases

State v. Traevon Dixon Def.

Therefore, your Motion for Transcript is DENIED.See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 330 (1976); see…

State v. Russell

State v. Fennell, 2008 WL 4227332, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 15, 2008) (citing State v. Johnson, 1999 WL…