Opinion
Cr. ID No. 0406014523.
Submitted: October 4, 2006.
Decided: November 14, 2006
ORDER
This 14th day of November, 2006, upon consideration of the defendant's pro se motion for production of documents, it appears:
1. On October 24, 2005, the defendant was offered and accepted a plea to Trafficking in Marijuana and Forgery First Degree. He was sentenced immediately to the sentence agreed to by the parties: 15 years at level V, the minimum mandatory for a habitual offender, on the Trafficking charge; and 3 years at level V, suspended for 18 months at level III on the Forgery charge.
2. The defendant has repeatedly written to the Court, which letters have been forwarded to his attorney, David Facciolo, Esquire, requesting transcripts and documents.
3. On September 14, 2006, the defendant filed a Motion for Extension of Time wherein he requested an extension of the time for the filing of a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 61. That Motion was denied on September 18, 2006, with the following notation: Rule 61(i) provides that a motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final. That deadline is not subject to extension. Request DENIED.
4. The defendant filed a further motion on October, 4, 2006, which is presently under consideration. Again, the defendant says that he wants to file a motion for postconviction relief, and makes a general request for documents and transcripts.
5. The Delaware Supreme Court has held that "[a] prisoner has no absolute right to a transcript to assist him in the preparation of a collateral attack on his conviction." Reiss v. State, 1990 WL 127879 (Del.Super.) (citing State v. Bordley, 1989 WL 135691 (Del.Super.)). "Unless a defendant can show that a transcript was necessary for him to present his claim, the Constitution does not obligate the State to provide it to him at public expense."Newman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 478, 1992, Horsey, J. (February 16, 1993) (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 330 (1976) (Blackman, J., concurring)). "A criminal defendant who fails to articulate specific allegations of constitutional infirmity is not entitled to a transcript as a matter of right." State v. Wright, 1992 WL 301733 (Del.Super.) (citing Mazzatenta v. State, Del. Supr., No. 366, 1990, Horsey, J. (Jan. 29, 1991) (ORDER).
6. The defendant has continually failed to articulate any specific allegations of constitutional infirmity for which a transcript is necessary to present his claim. His requests have consistently been non-specific. It has always been unclear what his grievance, if any, might be.
WHEREFORE, defendant's pro se "Motion for production of documents and Transcripts" is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.