Opinion
C.r. A. No.: 1N99-05-0889.
Submitted: August 19, 2003.
Decided: September 10, 2003.
Upon consideration of Defendant's pro se Request for Transcripts — DENIED
ORDER
William S. Dahl ("Dahl") has filed an appeal of the March 24, 2000, sentence imposed by this Judge. He has failed to properly request a transcript. Assuming such a request to arise by virtue of the numerous communications from the Supreme Court, it appears:
(1) The record reflects that Dahl plead guilty to the charges of Unlawfully Dealing in Material Depicting Children Engaged in Prohibited Sexual Acts on October 25, 1999. Dahl was subsequently sentenced on March 24, 2000. Dahl now asks that he be furnished with transcripts, at the expense of the State, of the sentencing proceeding held on March 24, 2000.
(2) There is no constitutional right to a free transcript for the purpose of preparing a post-trial motion.
State v. Quill, 1999 Del. Super. LEXIS 514 (citing State v. Bordley, 1989 Del. Super. LEXIS 435.).
(3) 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"
DEL SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(d)(3).
(4) "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."
Quill, 1999 LEXIS at *34.
(5) 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."
State v. Doran, Del. Super., Nos. 1N90-08-1791, 1N90-08-1792, 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, 1989 LEXIS at *4, (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, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 26 at *2.
(6) In the instant case, Dahl has offered no factual basis for his request. Pie has not made the requisite showing; therefore, the Defendant's pro se request for a transcript is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.