Opinion
Cr. I.D. No. 0107006531.
Submitted: September 29, 2004.
Decided: October 12, 2004.
ORDER
Upon Consideration of Defendant's pro se Request for Transcripts — DENIED
Defendant has filed a pro se motion for transcript, it appears:
(1) The record reflects that the defendant pled guilty to Murder 2nd degree and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited on February 6, 2002. Defendant now asks that he be furnished with transcripts, at the expense of the State, of:
a. Complete copy of all transcripts from sentencing hearing;
b. Complete copy of the plea colloquy; and
c. Copy of pretrial motions, Chambers conferences, pretrial hearings and all pertinent parts of the record.
(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 *3-4.
(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. IN 90-08-1791, IN 90-08-1792, 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, the defendant has offered no factual basis for his request. He has not made the requisite showing; therefore, the Defendant's pro se request for a transcript is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.