Simply put, on direct appeal, an indigent defendant is entitled to a free transcript of his trial or hearing as a matter of right. See 188 Ill. 2d R. 605(a) ("In all cases in which the defendant is found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment, * * * the trial court shall, at the time of imposing sentence * * *, advise the defendant * * * of his right, if indigent, to be furnished, without cost to him, with a transcript of the proceedings at his trial or hearing"); see also Harris v. State, 212 Ill. App. 3d 13, 15, 570 N.E.2d 694 (1991) (stating that the failure to provide an indigent defendant with a copy of his trial transcript for direct appeal is a violation of that defendant's right to due process), citing Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 100 L. Ed. 891, 76 S. Ct. 585 (1956). On the other hand, in the postconviction setting, section 122-4 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides:
( Madden v. Cronson (1986), 114 Ill.2d 504, 514.) Its purpose is to compel a public officer to perform a ministerial, nondiscretionary duty (see People ex rel. Ryan v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity Benefit Fund (1985), 136 Ill. App.3d 818, 820) which the officer has failed to perform (see AFSCME v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1989), 187 Ill. App.3d 585, 601) and to which the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right (see Harris v. State (1991), 212 Ill. App.3d 13, 15). Implicit in these principles is that mandamus will only lie to force a public official to do what the law requires him to do.
Id. at 425. In a slightly different context, in Harris v. State, 212 Ill. App. 3d 13 (1991), this court upheld the denial of an indigent defendant's request for a free transcript of a codefendant's trial but once again did not apply or reference the Britt two-part test. ΒΆ 32 Consequently, the case law from this court is conflicting and has yet to specifically apply the two-part Britt test. Therefore, instructive guidance can be found in the decisions applying the Britt test from some courts of other jurisdictions.