Opinion
ID No. 1707010054
11-15-2019
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. ANTONIO RUSSELL, Defendant.
cc: Antonio Russell, pro se (SBI# 00836045) Matthew B. Frawley, DAG
ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant's pro se Motion for Transcripts and In Forma Pauperis Affidavit, IT APPEARS THAT:
1. On September 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Transcripts and an In Forma Pauperis Affidavit, requesting the production of his January 25, 2019 Sentencing transcript at State expense. Defendant states that he needs this transcript in order to file a motion for postconviction relief under Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
D.I. 53.
2. "There is no blanket constitutional right to a free transcript for the purpose of preparing a post-trial motion." Instead, "[t]he Constitution requires that materials such as transcripts are provided only after judicial certification that they are necessary to decide non-frivolous issues in a pending case." Pursuant to Rule 61(d)(4), the Court "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." Thus, it is within the discretion of the Court to review the motion and the contents of the record and determine whether to order preparation of a transcript at State expense. "[W]hen a defendant offers no factual basis and fails to clearly identify the fundamental rights he claims were violated, the Court will deny the motion."
State v. Whitfield, 2007 WL 3108331, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 23, 2007) (citing State v. Allen, 2002 WL 31814750, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 4, 2002)); see also Miller v. State, 2008 WL 623236, at *2 (Del. Mar. 7, 2008) (citing United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 325-26 (1976)).
State v. Fennell, 2008 WL 4227332, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 15, 2008) (citing State v. Johnson, 1999 WL 1568387, at *1 (Del. Super. Feb. 8, 1999)).
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4); see also State v. Ketchum, 2002 WL 234745, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2002) ("[I]t 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.").
Fennell, 2008 WL 4227332, at *1.
State v. Allen, 2002 WL 31814750, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 4, 2002) (quoting State v. Ketchum, Del. Super., ID No. 86011157DI, Gebelein, J. (Jan. 31, 2002) (Order)); see also Demby v. State, 2014 WL 4898138, at *2 (Del. Sept. 29, 2014) ("Although indigent defendants have a right to transcripts at State expense on appeal, they do not have an absolute right to transcripts at State expense on collateral attacks. Absent a showing of good cause, it was within the Superior Court's discretion to deny [Defendant's] request for transcripts at State expense. Given the conclusory and untimely nature of [Defendant's] claims, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying [Defendant's] motion for transcripts."); Brown v. State, 2014 WL 4264923, at *3 (Del. Aug. 28, 2014) ("[I]n the absence of a showing of good cause, a defendant does not have a right to free transcripts to pursue postconviction relief."); State v. Monroe, 2008 WL 3865338, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 12, 2008) (citing Freeman v. State, 2003 WL 1857605, at * 1 (Del. Apr. 8, 2003)) ("The defendant is required to make a showing of a 'particularized need' for a transcript.").
3. While the Court evaluates pro se pleadings under a "'less stringent standard' than a pleading filed by an attorney, there are limits to this rule of liberal interpretation," Defendant's Motion does not provide information that enables the Court to infer a "particularized need."
Monroe, 2008 WL 3865338, at *1 (citing Johnson v. State, 442 A.2d 1362, 1364 (Del. 1982)) (citing Browne v. Saunders, 2001 WL 138497 (Del. Feb. 14, 2001)).
Id. --------
NOW THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Transcript is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Jan. R. Jurden, President Judge Original to Prothonotary cc: Antonio Russell, pro se (SBI# 00836045)
Matthew B. Frawley, DAG