Opinion
ID. No. 0405000068.
Submitted: March 27, 2007.
Decided: May 16, 2007.
Upon Consideration of Defendant's pro se Request for Transcripts — DENIED.
ORDER
Jason Walker ("Walker") has filed a pro se request for the transcript of all the "transcripts pertaining to all of the black perspective jurors that we struck by the prosecutor, and of the entire jury panel that sat through the trial. Also, any and all conversations that took place between defense counsel, the court (judge), and/or the counsel for the state about the racial makeup of the trial jury (struck or unstruck); the number of perspective jurors in the jury pool; and in regards to the number of strikes that were given and exercised."
Motion for Transcripts, filed March 26, 2007, p. 1.
It appears:
(1) Walker was tried in July 2005 on the charges that included capital murder, attempted robbery, and weapon offenses. A Superior Court jury convicted Walker of two counts of first degree murder, five counts of possession of a fire arm during the commission of a felony, two counts of attempted first degree robbery, one count of unlawful imprisonment, and one count of conspiracy. After hold a penalty hearing and receiving the jury's recommendation, the Superior Court sentenced Walker, among other things, to two terms of life imprisonment. That conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Walker v . State, Del. Supr., No. 517, 2005, Ridgely, J. (Feb. 15, 2007).
(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 43 5.).
(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) Walker's factual basis for his request is that "one of the jurors lied in order to sit on the jury panel, and that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to make appropriate objections and jury strikes."
Motion for Transcripts, filed March 26, 2007, p. 2.
(6) 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 90-08-179 2, 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 m ay deny a defendant's motion for transcript of record.).
State v. Ketchum, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 26 at *2 .
(6) In the instant case, Walker's factual basis is purely hypothetical. There was no Batson challenge raised during jury selection. He has not made the requisite showing; therefore, the Defendant's pro se request for a transcript is DENIED.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED.