State of Delaware v. Fields.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. DOUGLAS W. FIELDS Defendant. : : : : : : : Cr. I.D. No. 0307008810 ORDER Upon Consideration of Defendant s pro se Request for Transcripts - DENIED Submitted: April 3, 2006 Decided: July 17, 2006 Defendant has filed a request for transcripts of jury selection, voir dire, cross selection of jury arraignment, and hearing November 1, 2004, November 19, 2004 and December 22, 2004, transcripts. (1) The record reflects that the defendant was found guilty of Assault First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Burglary Second Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon by Person Prohibited and Resisting Arrest, on January 14, 2004. Defendant now asks that he be furnished with transcripts, at the expense of the State. (2) Defendant cites as authority for his request Supreme Court Rule 26(f). That rule is not relevant as the Superior Court judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court1. The only remedy is Rule 61. (3) 1 There is no constitutional right to a free transcript for the purpose of preparing a Fields v. Sta te, Del. Supr., 889 A.2d 283, No. 53, 20 04, Steele, C.J. (Nov. 28, 2005). Rule 61 post-trial motion.2 (4) 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. 3 (5) 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.4 (6) This Court s decisions in State v. Doran5 and State v. Bordley6 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. 7 2 State v. Qu ill, 1999 Del. Super. LEXIS 514 (citing State v. Bordley, 1989 Del. Super. LEXIS 43 5.). 3 DEL. SUPER. CT. C RIM . R. 61(d)(3). 4 Quill, 1999 LEXIS at *3-4. 5 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. ). 6 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.). 7 State v. Ketchum, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 26 at *2. (7) 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. ________________________________ Judge Susan C. Del Pesco Original to Prothonotary xc: Loren C. Meyers, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General Douglas W. Fields, Delaware Correctional Institute Deborah L. Webb, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court Kathleen Feldman, Chief Superior Court Reporter
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
