Opinion
ID. No. 8600202DI.
Submitted: November 2, 2007.
Decided: February 13, 2008.
Dear Mr. Brooks,
The Court is in receipt of your Motion for Transcripts dated November 2, 2007. You ask this Court to furnish you with the transcripts from your trial and the Family Court records of Stephenia LaShay Goodman pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(3) and (g)(1) (2). You claim that these documents will substantiate the claims made in your third postconviction motion which was denied by this Court on October 23, 2007.
Motion, Docket Item, 98.
State v. Brooks, 2007 WL 3105883 (Del.Super.).
"The Constitution requires that materials such as transcripts are provided only after judicial certification that they are necessary to decide nonfrivolous issues in a pending case." 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." Therefore, "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. . . ." A "criminal defendant who fails to articulate specific allegations of constitutional infirmity is not entitled to a transcript as a matter of right." The decisions of this Court make clear that "when the defendant offers no factual basis and fails to clearly identify any fundamental rights that were violated, the Court will find the defendant's claim `frivolous' and deny the motion."
State v. Johnson, 1999 WL 1568387, at *1 (Del.Super.), citing State v. Bordley, 1989 WL 135691, at *1 (Del.Super.).
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(3).
Quill, 1999 WL 1229313, at *1 (Del.Super.).
Johnson, 1999 WL 1568387, at *1 (Del.Super.), citing Mazzatenta v. State, 1991 WL 148285 (Del.Super.).
State v. Boardley, 1992 WL 354176, at *1 (Del.Super.).
Furthermore, Rule 61(g)(1) and (2) affords the Court the opportunity to expand the record as "[t]he judge may direct that the record be expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant to the determination of the merits of the motion."
Super Ct. Crim. R. 61(g)(1), (2) (emphasis added).
In its October 23, 2007 Order, this Court determined that you are not entitled to postconviction relief. In its February 12, 2008 Order, this Court again reviewed your claims and determined that you are not entitled to postconviction relief. Because you fail to demonstrate that the requested trial transcripts and Family Court records are necessary to establish a violation of fundamental rights, your Pro Se Motion is DENIED.
Brooks, 2007 WL 3105883 (Del.Super.).
State v. Brooks, Del. Super., ID No. 86002026DI, Jurden, J. (Feb. 12, 2008) (ORDER).