Opinion
ID No. 0111002808.
Submitted: August 23, 2007.
Decided: September 26, 2007.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Transcripts — DENIED.
Mr. Andre S. Fletcher, SBI#, Delaware Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware.
Dear Mr. Fletcher,
The Court is in receipt of your Motion for Transcripts dated August 23, 2007. Your request is denied for the reasons that follow:
On December 17, 2001, a Grand Jury indicted the Defendant on the following charges: Murder First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. On December 19, 2002, a jury convicted the Defendant of the lesser-included offense of Murder Second Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the Trial Judge found the Defendant guilty of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. On May 2, 2003, the Court sentenced the Defendant as follows: (a) on the count of Murder Second Degree, twenty years at Level V; (b) on the count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, seven years at Level V, suspended after six years, for one year at Level IV; and (c) on the count of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited, three years at Level V. On September 10, 2003, the Court corrected the Defendant's sentence for Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited to five years at Level V, suspended after three years.
See Indictment True Bill, State v. Fletcher, No. 0111002808 (Dec. 17, 2001), D.I. 2.
See Sentencing Order, State v. Fletcher, No. 0111002808 (May 2, 2003), D.I. 3.
Id.
See Corrected Sentence Order, State v. Fletcher, No. 0111002808 (Sept. 10, 2003), D.I. 46.
The Defendant timely appealed his conviction. On July 2, 2004, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed this Court's decision. In 2005, Defendant filed a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief. On May 9, 2006, this Court denied Defendant's Rule 61 motion. The Defendant filed the instant Motion for Transcripts on August 23, 2007.
See Fletcher v. State, 2004 WL 1535728 (Del.Supr.).
See Mot. for Postconviction Relief, D.I. 48.
D.I. 51.
The Defendant requests the trial transcripts, including opening and closing statements, all sidebar conferences or statements, and the Court's charge to the jury. He states that he is an indigent, incarcerated pro se defendant, who requires these transcripts to proceed with his postconviction remedies.
See Mot. for Transcripts, State v. Fletcher, No. 011102808 (Aug. 23, 2007) (D.I. 54).
"There is no blanket constitutional right to a free transcript for the purpose of preparing a post-trial motion." "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. . . ."
State v. Allen, 2002 WL 31814750, at *1 (Del.Super.); see e.g. State v. Quill, 1999 WL 1229313, at *1 (Del.Super.).
State v. Johnson, 1999 WL 1568387, at *1 (Del.Super.), citing State v. Bordley, 1989 WL 135691, at *1 (Del.Super.).
Quill, 1999 WL 1229313, at *1 (Del.Super.).
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 Mazzatenta v. State, 1991 WL 148285, (Del.Super.)
State v. Boardley, 1992 WL 354176, at *1 (Del.Super.).
The Defendant fails to assert any violation of his constitutional rights or articulate any facts that relate to "specific, nonfrivolous issues." Therefore, the Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Transcripts to be provided to him at no cost is DENIED.
State v. Johnson, 1999 WL 1568387 at *1 (Del.Super.)