Opinion
ID No. 0510012847.
Submitted: May 2, 2007.
Decided: May 9, 2007.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Transcripts At State's Expense — DENIED.
ORDER
On March 15, 2007, Defendant's conviction and lengthy prison sentence for serious drug offenses was affirmed on direct appeal. The mandate was filed on April 4, 2007. On April 30, 2007, Defendant, pro se, filed a motion requesting a transcript of the entire trial and sentencing.
Defendant wants the transcript to help him prepare a motion for postconviction relief. He insists that he cannot file the motion without a transcript. And, he argues that he is entitled to a transcript at taxpayers' expense, on demand.
Actually, there is no requirement under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, which governs postconviction relief proceedings, that the movant must have a transcript. Moreover, Defendant has no right to a transcript on demand. Defendant may either file his motion for postconviction relief without a transcript or he must file a motion explaining, in detail, the reason why providing a transcript will not be a waste of money.
State v. Bordly, 1989 WL 13569 (Del.Super.). See also State v. Chao, 2002 WL 31814786 (Del.Super.).
As to the former, when the court preliminarily reviews the motion, it will consider whether a transcript will be helpful. A s to the latter, Rule 61 does not allow Defendant to re-litigate the issues raised during his trial and direct appeal. Nor does it allow him to raise issues that should have been presented before now, unless Defendant provides a good excuse and he shows that it would have made a difference. Typically, a motion for postconviction relief raises ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3).
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4).
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3)(A) and (B).
In any event, Defendant has not presented reasons justifying the court's providing a transcript to Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a transcript is DENIED . The court observes, however, that a trial transcript was prepared in connection with Defendant's direct appeal. Accordingly, the court encourages Defendant's trial counsel, as a matter of grace, to provide his former client with the transcript.
IT IS SO ORDERED.