Case Title: RICKEY DON CUTBIRTH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-02-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
RICKEY DON CUTBIRTH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING1985 WY 23695 P.2d 156Case Number: 84-72Decided: 02/13/1985Supreme Court of Wyoming
RICKEY DON CUTBIRTH, 
APPELLANT (DEFENDANT), 

v. 

THE STATE OF 
WYOMING, 
APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, LincolnCounty, John D. Troughton, 
J.

 
 
Rickey Don 
Cutbirth, pro 
se.

A.G. McClintock, 
Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Senior Asst. 
Atty. Gen., Margaret M. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before THOMAS,* C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY,** BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

* Became Chief Justice 
January 1, 1985.

** Chief Justice at time 
case submitted on briefs.

ROSE, 
Justice.

Facts

[¶1.]     On November 1, 1982, 
appellant was sentenced to the state penitentiary for a term of not less than 20 
years or more than life for the crime of second-degree murder. This court 
affirmed that conviction in Cutbirth v. 
State, Wyo., 663 P.2d 888 
(1983).

[¶2.]     Since incarceration, 
the appellant has filed various motions for the production of evidence. On July 
29, 1983 Mr. Cutbirth filed a document styled "Motion for Production of Evidence 
for Independent Forensic Examination." This motion sought release of certain 
trial exhibits to a criminologist. The motion was granted and the evidence 
released for the purposes indicated.

[¶3.]     On November 8, 1983 
appellant filed another motion for discovery, asking that the prosecuting 
attorney make available written statements given by the defendant and various 
trial witnesses, crime reports and various photographs. Together with this 
motion, he filed another document on November 8, 1983 entitled "Motion for 
Discovery" (which is not, in fact, in the form of a motion), in which he simply 
reiterates that the items requested in the first motion are in the hands of 
Lincoln County law enforcement officials. Accompanying these two so-called 
motions, the defendant filed an affidavit of indigency. The trial court denied 
these last-mentioned discovery motions.

[¶4.]     On February 27, 1984 
appellant filed what is styled "Motion for Court Order Requiring the Court 
Reporter to Release Photographs of Exhibits and Transcripts." In this motion, 
appellant requests photographs of all exhibits received into evidence in the 
course of the trial as well as a copy of the 108-page transcript of his recorded 
statement to law-enforcement officials, which statement was submitted to the 
jury. The motion includes the following statement of the appellant's reasons for 
requesting the trial materials:

"The purpose of said 
Motion for Court Order requiring the Court Reporter to release photographs of 
exhibits and edited transcribed statement will provide immeasurable assistance 
in further Judicial Proceedings and will enable defendant herein to properly 
prepare for a defense to the charge filed thereof."

The trial court 
denied this motion by order dated and filed February 27, 
1984.

[¶5.]     Defendant appeals from 
this February 27, 1984 denial.

Issue

[¶6.]     The issue for our 
consideration asks whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion 
to require the court reporter to release a copy and photographs of designated 
portions of the trial record.

[¶7.]     Appellant contends that 
the trial court should be reversed for the reason that Rule 18, W.R.Cr.P.1 and concepts of due process and 
equal protection require the release of the requested 
material.

[¶8.]     The appellant is in 
error in this contention for three reasons:

(1) Under section (g) of 
Rule 18, a post-conviction motion for discovery may be made only upon a showing 
of cause why the motion would be in the interest of justice. Appellant has made 
no such showing.

(2) The right to trial 
transcripts and exhibits does not obtain unless the defendant can make a 
preliminary showing to the effect that the requested material will support an 
articulable claim. This was not done.

(3) Wyoming law holds that 
before a trial transcript will be made available to a prisoner there must be a 
post-conviction petition pending and the district court must have determined 
that the petition has merit. We find this ruling equally applicable to a 
prisoner's request for trial exhibits. Appellant has not complied with this 
requirement.

The Rule 18, W.R.Cr.P. 
Grounds

[¶9.]     Rule 18, W.R.Cr.P. 
authorizes discovery by the defendant and the state in criminal cases. Section 
(g) of this rule provides:

"The motion under this 
rule may be made only within ten (10) days after arraignment or at such 
reasonable later time as the court may permit. The motion shall include all 
relief sought under this rule. A subsequent motion may be made only upon a 
showing of cause why such motion would be in the interest of 
justice."

[¶10.]  This section indicates that Rule 18 is 
intended primarily for use in the preparation of a defense in and for the case 
in chief. We articulated this purpose in DeLuna v. State, Wyo., 501 P.2d 1021, 1024 
(1972), when we held that a motion for a testifying witness' statement under 
Rule 18(c), W.R.Cr.P. is proper only for use in cross-examination and, 
therefore, not available after trial. Although the materials discoverable under 
Rule 18(a) and (b), supra n. 1, might properly be used in post-conviction 
proceedings, Rule 18(g) requires a showing of cause why the release of such 
materials would be in the interest of justice.

[¶11.]  Appellant in the instant case has failed 
to state with any degree of particularity why or how the requested information 
would assist him in collaterally attacking his conviction. He says only that he 
needs the materials for "further Judicial Proceedings" and to aid in the proper 
preparation of a defense. These general, conclusory statements do not satisfy 
the requirement of Rule 18(g), and the trial judge properly denied appellant's 
motion.

An Articulable 
Claim

[¶12.]  Appellant contends that under the Due 
Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution, he has 
an absolute right to the requested materials to aid in preparing his petition 
for collateral relief. However, before the courts are obligated to produce trial 
materials for use in a post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner must 
articulate a claim which necessitates an examination of the trial 
record.

[¶13.]  This case is not unlike State v. Wildenstein, 91 N.M. 550, 577 P.2d 448 (1978), in which the defendant was charged with being an habitual 
criminal based upon 1959 and 1977 convictions. He demanded a transcript of the 
court proceedings which had resulted in his conviction so that he could mount a 
collateral attack on the prior 1959 proceeding in order to escape the 
habitual-criminal penalty.

[¶14.]  In this appeal, Mr. Cutbirth asks that 
the transcript and exhibits be made available so that he will 
be

"* * * able to examine, 
refer to, and to study the exhibits offered and received during the course of 
the trial to ascertain the exact claim that can or should be made * * 
*."

In other words, 
appellant has no reason for requesting the material except to attempt to 
discover some error which might be lurking there. This is an insufficient reason 
to grant the motion. The New 
Mexico court said, in State v. Wildenstein, 
supra:

"* * * Thus, defendant 
claims that he has a right to hunt for a basis to collaterally attack the 1959 
conviction, and if the State fails to provide him the materials through which he 
wishes to hunt, due process is violated. Defendant was not entitled to a 
transcript to enable him to search that transcript in the hope of discovering a 
basis for collaterally attacking the 1959 conviction. State v. Toussaint, 84 N.M. 677, 506 P.2d 1224 (Ct.App. 1973); see United 
States v. MacCollom, [infra]." 577 P.2d  at 452.

[¶15.]  In United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 96 S. Ct. 2086, 48 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1976), Justice Blackmun, concurring with the majority's decision that the 
furnishing of a trial transcript was not necessary to insure due process when 
requested for collateral-attack purposes, observed:

"For me, the issue in 
this case is whether the Constitution requires that a transcript be provided 
when an indigent makes no showing, with any degree of particularity, that he 
requires the transcript in order to make an effective collateral attack on his 
conviction." 426 U.S.  at 329, 96 S. Ct.  at 
2093.

[¶16.]  The Justice went on to 
say:

"* * * In order for him 
to obtain a transcript of his trial, he was required to show only that his claim 
was not frivolous and that there was a basis, grounded on some articulable facts, for believing 
that a transcript would assist him in his § 2255 proceeding. Clearly, there is 
no constitutional requirement that the United States provide an indigent 
with a transcript when that transcript is not necessary in order for him to 
prove his claim, or when his claim is frivolous on its face. Nor does the 
Constitution require that an indigent be furnished every possible legal tool, no 
matter how speculative its value, and no matter how devoid of assistance it may 
be * * *." 426 U.S.  at 329-330, 96 S. Ct.  at 
2093.

[¶17.]  In interpreting the holding of MacCollom, the Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals said, in United States v. 
Losing, 601 F.2d 351, 353 (8th Cir. 1979):

"* * * Nevertheless, it 
is clear that a majority of the Court concluded that a prisoner has no absolute 
right to a transcript to assist him in the preparation of a collateral attack on 
his conviction, and that constitutional requirements are met by providing such 
materials only after judicial certification that they are required to decide the 
issues presented by a non-frivolous pending case."

[¶18.]  We find these rulings concerning a 
prisoner's right to a trial transcript applicable to his right to other portions 
of the record as well. There is no constitutional requirement that a prisoner 
has an absolute right to have made available trial exhibits and personal 
statements to aid in the preparation of a collateral attack upon his conviction 
unless he is able, with some realistic degree of particularity, to point up 
articulable facts which support his claim that the material is essential to the 
preparation of his post-conviction-relief effort.

Petition for 
Post-Conviction Relief Must be Pending

[¶19.]  Before the state is obligated to furnish 
a prisoner with a trial transcript after the appeal time has run upon the 
prisoner's conviction, a petition for constitutional post-conviction relief must 
be on file and the district court must determine that the petition has merit. Escobedo v. State, Wyo., 601 P.2d 1028 
(1979). We see no reason to establish different requirements for a prisoner's 
request for other portions of the record. Neither of these conditions has been 
met in this case.

[¶20.]  Affirmed.

1 Appellant apparently 
relies on sections (a) and (b) of Rule 18, W.R.Cr.P., which provide in 
part:

"(a) Defendant's statement; report of 
examinations and tests; defendant's grand jury testimony. - Upon motion of a 
defendant, the court may order the attorney for the state to permit the 
defendant to inspect and copy or photograph any relevant (1) written or recorded 
statements or confessions made by the defendant or copies thereof, within the 
possession, custody or control of the state, the existence of which is known, or 
by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the prosecuting attorney * 
* *."

"(b) Other books, papers, documents, tangible 
objects or places. - Upon motion of a defendant the court may order the 
prosecuting attorney to permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph 
books, papers, documents, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or 
portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the 
state, upon a showing of the materiality to the preparation of his defense, and 
that the request is reasonable."