Doleman v. Cain ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30174
Summary Calendar
CLIFFORD DOLEMAN,
Respondent-Appellee,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden,
Louisiana State Penitentiary,
Petitioner-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-1219-I
- - - - - - - - - -
December 21, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant appeals from the district court’s order granting
federal habeas relief to Clifford Doleman, Louisiana prisoner
# 92214, with respect to Doleman’s claim that he was denied due
process when the state courts denied his request for a free
transcript of his first trial. Appellant argues that the
district court erred in holding that the pretrial transcripts of
some of the trial witnesses, the investigative reports, the
duplicative testimony, and the presence of the same counsel at
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-30174
-2-
both trials were an inadequate alternative to the transcript of
the first trial.
The State must provide an indigent defendant with a
transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed
for an effective defense. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226,
227 (1971); United States v. Pulido, 879 F.2d 1255, 1257 (5th
Cir. 1989). Appellant does not contest the district court’s
finding that the state appellate court’s decision requiring a
showing of substantial prejudice was contrary to clearly
established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. The
transcript was available and could have been furnished to
Doleman. The alternatives suggested by Appellant are not the
functional equivalent of the transcript. See Britt, 404 U.S. at
229 n.4 (citing Long v. District Ct. of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 194-
95 (1966)); Tague v. Puckett, 874 F.2d 1013, 1015 (5th Cir.
1989). Accordingly, because the state court’s decision is
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of
the United States, the judgment of the district court granting
federal habeas relief is AFFIRMED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Doleman’s motion to expedite the appeal is GRANTED.