Opinion
No. 06-20056-10-KHV.
October 30, 2009
CRIMINAL ACTION ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant's letter (Doc. #716) which the Court received on September 30, 2009, and construes as a motion for copies of transcripts. For reasons stated below, the Court overrules defendant's motion.
Initially, the Court overrules defendant's motion because defendant is represented by counsel. See United States v. Sandoval-DeLao, 283 Fed. Appx. 621, 625 (10th Cir. 2008) (no error in refusal to consider pro se motion when defendant represented by counsel); United States v. Castellon, 218 Fed. Appx. 775, 780 (10th Cir. 2007) (if criminal defendant represented by counsel, court does not accept pro se filings or allegations); United States v. McKinley, 58 F.3d 1475, 1480 (10th Cir. 1995) (no constitutional right to "hybrid form of representation"). In any event, defendant has not shown a particularized need for copies of the transcripts. See Brown v. N.M. Dist. Court Clerks, 141 F.3d 1184, 1998 WL 123064, at *3 n. 1 (10th Cir. Mar. 19, 1998) (to obtain free copy of transcript, habeas petitioner must demonstrate claim not frivolous and materials needed to decide issue presented by suit); United States v. Sistrunk, 992 F.2d 258, 260 (10th Cir. 1993) (under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), indigent defendant entitled to free copy of transcript on showing of particularized need); Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (prisoner does not have right to free transcript simply to search for error in record); see also United States v. Lewis, 37 F.3d 1510 (Table), 1994 WL 563442, at *1 (10th Cir. Oct. 14, 1994) (same standard as transcripts can be applied to prisoner requests for pretrial records).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's letter (Doc. #716) which the Court received on September 30, 2009, and construes as a motion for copies of transcripts, be and hereby is OVERRULED.