Opinion
ID No. 1906010188
10-22-2020
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. PAUL WILLIAMS, Defendant.
ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant's pro se Motion for Transcripts and Affidavit in Support of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, IT APPEARS THAT:
1. On October 1, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Transcripts along with an Affidavit in Support of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In his Motion, Defendant asks the Court to produce his December 6, 2019 Suppression Hearing transcript and his December 17, 2019 Hearing transcript at the State's expense. In support of his Motion, Defendant states that he needs the requested transcripts for the following reasons: "Post Conviction Relief + Notice of Appeal."
D.I. 40.
Id.
Id.
2. To begin, "a defendant does not have a right to free transcript[s] in order to pursue postconviction relief in the absence of a showing of good cause." The Constitution requires the Court to certify that transcripts "are necessary to decide non-frivolous issues in a pending case." Further, Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(4) provides that 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." It is therefore within the Court's discretion to review a defendant's motion and the record to determine whether transcripts should be prepared at State expense. "When a defendant offers no factual basis and fails to clearly identify the fundamental rights he claims were violated, the Court will deny the motion." Here, Defendant's Motion does not show the requisite good cause. Nor does it provide any basis—factual or legal—for Defendant's desire to pursue postconviction relief. Accordingly, the Court declines to provide Defendant with the requested transcripts at State expense for the purpose of pursuing postconviction relief.
Johnson v. State, 2013 WL 6858400, at *1 (Del. Dec. 24, 2013) (citation omitted); see also Demby v. State, 2014 WL 4898138, at *2 (Del. Sept. 29, 2014) (citations omitted).
State v. Russell, 2019 WL 6248340, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 15, 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting State v. Whitfield, 2007 WL 3108331, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 23, 2007)).
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4) (emphasis added).
Russell, 2019 WL 6248340, at *1 (citation omitted).
Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Allen, 2002 WL 31814750, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 4, 2002)).
D.I. 40.
Id.
3. Defendant also states that he needs the transcripts to pursue a direct appeal. In general, "indigent defendants have a right to transcripts at State expense on appeal." But "absent a showing that there is some legal or factual basis for relief and that there is a particularized need for a transcript on appeal, the Superior Court is within its discretion to deny a transcript at State expense." Defendant has failed to provide any reasons for wanting to pursue a direct appeal. So the Court cannot determine whether Defendant has a particularized need for the transcripts he requests. Accordingly, the Court declines to provide Defendant with the requested transcripts at State expense for the purpose of pursuing a direct appeal.
Demby v. State, 2014 WL 4898138, at *2 (Del. Sept. 29, 2014) (citing Miller v. State, 2008 WL 623236, at *2 (Del. Mar. 7, 2008).
Robinson v. State, 2003 WL 1869909, at *2 (Del. Apr. 10, 2003) (citing United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 330 (1976)).
D.I. 40.
See State v. Monroe, 2008 WL 3865338, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 12, 2008) (denying a request for transcripts when the defendant made no showing as to why he needed them).
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: Paul Williams (SBI# 00470169)
Colleen Durkin, DAG