U.S. 12; 76 S.CT. 585; 100 L.Ed.2d (1956) '" "' MEYER V. CHICAGE, 404 U.S. 189; 92 S.CT. 410; 30 L.Ed. 2d 892 (1963),
TO IMPOSE A FINANCIAL BURDEN UPON AN INDIGENT PRISONER OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE EXERCISE OF A STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHT TO SUE FOR HIS LIBERTY IS TO DENY THAT PRISONER OF HIS STATE
AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND IS A [DIRECT] VIOLATION OF HIS. "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, " U.S.C.A. (14). IN ABNOR V. STATE, AT 140... THE SUPREME COURT OF. APPEALS FOR TEXAS-HELD THAT:
"...ONCE AVENUE OF PAAELLATE REVIEW ARE ESTABLISHED THEY [MUST] BE KEPT FREE OF UNREASONED DISTINCTIONS, THAT CAN ONLY [IMJPEDE OPEN AND EQUAL, ACCESS TO THE COURTS"... IN GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA., THE COURT CLEARLY STATED:.
"...THERE CAN BE [NO] EQUAL JUSTICE WHERE THE KIND OF TRIAL • A MAN GETS DEPENDS ON THE .AMOUNT OF MONEY HE HAS."
IN' LANE V. BROWN, SUPRA. , THE SUPREME COURT [REjAFFIRMED THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF GREEN, SUPRA BY STATING:
". . .DESTITUDE DEFENDANTS [MUST] BE AFFORDED AS ADEQUATE APPEL- L-A-T-E R-E-V-I-E-W AS DEFEND-A-NTS WH'OW7-H"ATE~MO"NEY~~TO-BTTr^THETR TDTflT T'DTNMOi'-'DTnmc jsMrV n o n r~\ r> r" n ' *' IN SMITH V. BENNET, SUPRA., THE COURT FURTHER NOTED: "...THESE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT LIMITED TO DIRECT APPEALS ' FROM CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS BUT EXTEND ALIKE TO "POST-CONVICTIONS AS WELLT77"
PETITIONER CONTENDS THE NEED FOR HIS TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS ENT- f':
ITLED TO HIM THE SAME, AND SAID RECORDS ARE IMPERATIVE TO PRESENT HIS CASE IN LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO HIS CAUSE. WITHOUT THESE RECORDS HE CANNOT PROVE HIS INNOCENCE TO A HIGHER COURT. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND DUE PRO CESS OF LAW WHICH PROTECTS AND REQUIRES THE STATE TO FURNISH AN INDIGENT PRISONER SUCH RECORDS WITHOUT CHARGE.
SEE. UNITED STATES V. GLESS, 317 F.2d 200 (1963)
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS DUE PROCESS GUARANTEE OF FUNDAMEN TAL FAIRNESS, REQUIRES THE STATE TO PROVIDE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE MEANINGFULLY" IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN WHICH HIS LIBERTY IS AT STAKE.
SEE. AKER V. OKLAHOMA, 470 U.S. at 76; 105 S.CT. 1098 Af.SO, THE SUPREME mnRT Pr.RflRr.V qrPflTPn-
"...IT IS A CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO HIS RECORDS WHICH MAKES [ANY] APPELLATE REVIEW MEANINGFUL..." SEE. GARNER V. CALIFORNIA, 89 S.CT. at 581 (1969)
ACCORDINGLEY, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE STATE [MUST] PROVIDE THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS FOR. AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE- THE COURT HEAVILY EMPHASIZED IN GRIFFIN:
"...THE HOLDINGS IN THE LINE OF CASES BEGIN WITH GRIFFIN, 351, U.S. 12 (1956), INVOLVING A CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO A. TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, AND ARE FIRMLY [ROOTED] IN BOTH THE DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
SEE ALSO, EVITTS V. LUCEY, SUPRA, at 830,
(CRIMINAL DEFENDANT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FREE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT TO PETITION THE SUPREME COURT) "...Id, at 830..." SEE ALSO, BUNDY V. WILSON, 815 F.2d 125-130-31 (1987); ALLEN V. DUCKWORTH, 6 F.3D 458 (1993), (STATE IS NOT 'PERMIT TED WITH ONE