Summary
In McCrary v. Indiana, 364 U.S. 277, a judgment of dismissal of a post-conviction coram nobis proceeding based on the lack of a transcript of evidence which was required by the rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana was vacated, and the cause was remanded for consideration by that court in the light of the refusal by the public defender to assist, since under Indiana law the public defender was empowered to obtain such transcript.
Summary of this case from State ex Rel. v. McMahonOpinion
No. 417, Misc.
Decided June 27, 1960.
Petitioner alleges he was denied equal protection because as a pauper he was unable to furnish and pay for transcript of trial required by court rules to be filed with appeal in post-conviction proceeding in state court, and also that he was denied services of public defender. Held: Certiorari granted; order of dismissal vacated; and case remanded for further consideration.
239 Ind. 707, 158 N.E.2d 292, vacated and remanded.
Petitioner pro se.
Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General of Indiana, and Richard M. Givan, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the writ of certiorari are granted. Petitioner's attempted appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana from a denial of relief in a post-conviction coram nobis proceeding was dismissed because of his failure to comply with rules of that court, requiring, inter alia, the filing of a transcript of the trial proceedings. He alleges that the dismissal denied him the equal protection of the laws because he was and is unable to pay for the preparation of such a transcript, see Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, and that although he attempted to avail himself of the services of the Indiana Public Defender, who is empowered to secure the preparation of such a transcript in paupers' cases, see Burns' Indiana Stats. (1956 Repl.), § 13-1401 et seq., that officer declined to assist him. The record before us does not disclose whether these allegations were made to, and passed on by, the Indiana Supreme Court in light of Griffin v. Illinois, supra. Accordingly we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case to it for further consideration of the appeal.