Opinion
I.D. No. 83005216DI
Date Submitted: June 12, 2002
Date Decided: November 4, 2002
ORDER Upon Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Transcripts — DENIED
Before the court is a Pro Se Motion for Transcripts, filed by the defendant, Vincent Allen ("Allen"). Allen asks this Court to issue an Order directing that he be furnished with transcripts, at the expense of the State, of the July 25, 1984 hearing on the Motion to Declare Defendant a Habitual Offender and of the August 10, 1984 sentencing proceeding, so that Allen may proceed with post conviction remedies.
The record reflects that on March 27, 1984, a jury convicted Allen of one count of Burglary in the Third Degree, four counts of Theft Under $500, and three counts of Forgery in the Second Degree. On July 25, 1985, the Court granted the State's motion to declare Allen an habitual offender. On August 10, 1984, the Court sentenced Allen to a total of fifteen (15) years incarceration. On April 8, 1995, the Supreme Court affirmed Allen's conviction. On February 1, 2002, this Court summarily dismissed Allen's Motion for Post Conviction Relief as being procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1).
Allen v. State, Del. Supr., No. 250, 1984, Moore, J. (April 8, 1985) (Order). See also, Allen v. State, Del. Supr., No. 294, 1984, Christie, J. (April 10, 1985) (Order).
State v. Allen, Del. Super, I.D. No. 83005216DI, Goldstein, J. (Feb. 1, 2002) (Order) (holding "that Defendant has [not] raised `a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.'").
There is no blanket constitutional right to a free transcript for the purpose of preparing a post-trial motion. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(3) states: "[t]he 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." Thus, "it is within the discretion of the Judge who examines the motion and contents of the record to determine whether to order preparation of a transcript." This Court's decisions in State v. Doran and State v. Bordley "make clear that 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." In the instant case, Allen has not made the requisite showing and therefore Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Transcripts to be provided to him at no cost is DENIED.
State v. Quill, Del. Super, Nos. 9807020773, 98-08-1420, Quillen, J. (Oct. 18, 1999) (citing State v. Bordley, Del. Super, Cr. A. No. IK84-05-0002, Steele, J. (Oct 26, 1989) (Order)).
DEL. SUPER.CT.CRIM.R. 61(d)(3).
Quill, Del. Super., Nos. 9807020773, 98-08-1420, Quillen, J. (Oct. 18, 1999).
State v. Doran, Del. Super., Nos. IN90-08-1791, IN90-08-1792, Barron, J. (June 12, 1992) (Order) (following the Court's decision in Bordley, the Court denied the defendant's motion holding that the motion was "general and unsupported by any specific claim or facts.").
Bordley, Del. Super., Cr. A. No. IK84-05-0002, Steele, J. (Oct 26, 1989) (Order) (holding that where the "[d]efendant offers no factual basis or clear identification of any fundamental rights that were violated," a court may deny a defendant's motion for transcript of record.).
State v. Ketchum, Del. Super., ID. No. 86011157DI, Gebelein, J. (Jan. 31, 2002) (Order).
IT IS SO ORDERED.