State v. Williams ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                        )
    )
    v.                                )           ID No. 1906010188
    )
    PAUL WILLIAMS,                            )
    )
    Defendant.                        )
    Date Submitted: October 1, 2020
    Date Decided: October 22, 2020
    ORDER
    Upon consideration of Defendant’s pro se Motion for Transcripts and
    Affidavit in Support of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, IT APPEARS
    THAT:
    1.   On October 1, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Transcripts along
    with an Affidavit in Support of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.1 In his
    Motion, Defendant asks the Court to produce his December 6, 2019 Suppression
    Hearing transcript and his December 17, 2019 Hearing transcript at the State’s
    expense.2 In support of his Motion, Defendant states that he needs the requested
    transcripts for the following reasons: “Post Conviction Relief + Notice of Appeal.”3
    1
    D.I. 40.
    2
    Id. 3
    
    Id.
    2
    . 
        To begin, “a defendant does not have a right to free transcript[s] in order
    to pursue postconviction relief in the absence of a showing of good cause.”4 The
    Constitution requires the Court to certify that transcripts “are necessary to decide
    non-frivolous issues in a pending case.”5 Further, Delaware Superior Court Criminal
    Rule 61(d)(4) provides that the Court “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.”6 It is therefore within the Court’s discretion to review a
    defendant’s motion and the record to determine whether transcripts should be
    prepared at State expense.7 “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.”8 Here, Defendant’s Motion does not show the requisite good cause.9
    Nor does it provide any basis—factual or legal—for Defendant’s desire to pursue
    postconviction relief.10 Accordingly, the Court declines to provide Defendant with
    
    4 N.M. (J.) v
    . State, 
    2013 WL 6858400
    , at *1 (Del. Dec. 24, 2013) (citation omitted); see also
    Demby v. State, 
    2014 WL 4898138
    , at *2 (Del. Sept. 29, 2014) (citations omitted).
    5
    State v. Russell, 
    2019 WL 6248340
    , at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 15, 2019) (internal quotation
    marks and citations omitted) (quoting State v. Whitfield, 
    2007 WL 3108331
    , at *1 (Del. Super. Ct.
    Oct. 23, 2007)).
    6
    Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4) (emphasis added).
    7
    Russell, 
    2019 WL 6248340
    , at *1 (citation omitted).
    8
    Id. (brackets and internal
    quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Allen, 
    2002 WL 31814750
    ,
    at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 4, 2002)).
    9
    D.I. 40.
    10
    Id. 2
    the requested transcripts at State expense for the purpose of pursuing postconviction
    relief.
    3.   Defendant also states that he needs the transcripts to pursue a direct
    appeal. In general, “indigent defendants have a right to transcripts at State expense
    on appeal.”11 But “absent a showing that there is some legal or factual basis for
    relief and that there is a particularized need for a transcript on appeal, the Superior
    Court is within its discretion to deny a transcript at State expense.”12 Defendant has
    failed to provide any reasons for wanting to pursue a direct appeal.13 So the Court
    cannot determine whether Defendant has a particularized need for the transcripts he
    requests.14 Accordingly, the Court declines to provide Defendant with the requested
    transcripts at State expense for the purpose of pursuing a direct appeal.
    NOW THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for
    Transcript is DENIED without prejudice.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    11
    Demby v. State, 
    2014 WL 4898138
    , at *2 (Del. Sept. 29, 2014) (citing Miller v. State, 
    2008 WL 623236
    , at *2 (Del. Mar. 7, 2008).
    12
    Robinson v. State, 
    2003 WL 1869909
    , at *2 (Del. Apr. 10, 2003) (citing United States v.
    MacCollum, 
    426 U.S. 317
    , 330 (1976)).
    13
    D.I. 40.
    14
    See State v. Monroe, 
    2008 WL 3865338
    , at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 12, 2008) (denying a request
    for transcripts when the defendant made no showing as to why he needed them).
    3
    Jan R. Jurden
    Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
    Original to Prothonotary
    cc:   Paul Williams (SBI# 00470169)
    Colleen Durkin, DAG
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1906010188

Judges: Jurden P.J.

Filed Date: 10/22/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/23/2020