Title: State v. Jackson
Citation: 554 P.2d 1347, 87 Wash. 2d 562
Docket Number: 44143
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: October 14, 1976

87 Wn.2d 562 (1976) 554 P.2d 1347 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. DEBORAH FAYE JACKSON, Appellant. No. 44143. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. October 14, 1976. *563 Koenigsberg, Brown, Sinsheimer, Stone &amp; Meltzer, Inc., P.S., Ronald J. Meltzer, and Stephen J. Hillman, for appellant. Christopher T. Bayley, Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas H. Wolfendale, Deputy, for respondent. John A. Strait, amicus curiae. WRIGHT, J. This case presents the issue of whether the trial judge's denial of petitioner's motion for reimbursement of indigent appeal expenses operated in a constitutionally impermissible manner to totally preclude her from "any means of getting adequate [appellate] review on the merits". Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 498, 9 L. Ed. 2d 899, 83 S. Ct. 774 (1963). On October 16, 1975, petitioner was convicted of two counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery in a nonjury trial, and was sentenced to three concurrent terms of not more than 20 years each. Subsequently, petitioner filed notice of appeal, together with a petition to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to CAROA 46 and 47.[1] Attached to the in forma pauperis petition was a supporting affidavit by petitioner's trial attorney stating in part: On March 2, 1976, the presiding judge of the Superior Court for King County denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that "counsel's affidavit does not `demonstrate that the appeal is in good faith and has probable merit.'"[2] Since the motion was not disposed of under CAROA 47(a) (2) (iii) the Superior Court referred the motion and supporting affidavits to this court and we accept review under CAROA 47 (a) (2) (iv). [1] Petitioner cites the case of Draper v. Washington, supra, in support of her argument that CAROA 47 violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution if it is construed to require an advance showing of probable merit before a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal can be granted. In Draper, the United States Supreme Court was concerned with the constitutional validity of a procedure developed in Woods v. Rhay, 54 Wn.2d 36, 44-45, 338 P.2d 332 (1959) for handling motions requesting preparation of a free transcript of the record and statement of facts for indigent criminal defendants. We held that the trial court had properly applied the principles of Woods when it found defendants' appeal to be patently frivolous in State v. Long, 58 Wn.2d 830, 365 P.2d 31 (1961). On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed and held in Draper v. Washington, supra at 499-500: In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned at page 496 *565 that the State has a constitutional duty Petitioner contends that the current construction of CAROA 47 is unconstitutional because the trial judge's ruling that her motion does not demonstrate good faith and probable merit prevents her from as "adequate and effective appellate review" as that available to nonindigents.[3] In Draper, however, the court, at pages 495-96, left considerable leeway to the State for determining what is "adequate and effective": (Italics ours.) Petitioner also argues that the trial court's ruling precludes counsel and the appellate court from fulfilling their respective duties as prescribed by the United States Supreme Court in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). At page 744, the court set *566 forth a procedure for counsel to withdraw from a case if he feels that his client's appeal would be wholly frivolous: (Footnote omitted.) We adopted the Anders prerequisites in State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970). [2] Both Draper and Anders seem to require us to determine whether part or all of the trial transcript is necessary to present an appellate court with "a `record of sufficient completeness' to permit proper consideration of [petitioners'] claims." Draper v. Washington, supra at 499. Counsel says that petitioner's only appealable ground appears to be insufficiency of the evidence. Since the record herein is brief and the full record seems to be the most practical to report the trial proceedings in this case we feel that a transcript of the trial testimony (excluding voir dire, opening and closing arguments, and instructions) should be granted to petitioner. If after examining the trial testimony, counsel determines that an appeal would be frivolous, he would be required to use that transcript to meet his obligations under Anders v. California, supra. We emphasize, however, that the State is not obligated to pay for *567 a transcript in every case. See State v. Badda, 66 Wn.2d 314, 319-20, 402 P.2d 348 (1965); State v. Koser, 76 Wn.2d 509, 512, 458 P.2d 27 (1969); and the discussion supra. We only hold that where the only appealable ground is insufficiency of the evidence, and there was no showing of any better method of reporting the trial testimony at petitioner's 1-day trial, she should in this case be granted a transcript of the trial testimony at public expense. STAFFORD, C.J., and ROSELLINI, HUNTER, HAMILTON, UTTER, BRACHTENBACH, HOROWITZ, and DOLLIVER, JJ., concur. [1] CAROA 47(a) (1) (ii), which was still in effect when this petition was filed, prescribes the procedure for authorizing the expenditure of public funds in indigent appeal cases. The rule requires a party to file a timely motion and supporting affidavits setting forth the party's total assets, the amount, if any, the party can contribute to the expense of appellate review, a brief statement of the nature of the case and the issues sought to be reviewed, a description of the record thought necessary for appellate review, and the costs sought to be waived or provided at public expense. The affidavit shall also demonstrate that the appeal is in good faith and has probable merit. In the present case the trial judge ruled that petitioner is indigent. [2] The trial judge also found that CAROA 47 must be reconciled with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). [3] We have already ruled that the proper construction of ROA I-47(a) (1) (ii) merely requires the party to allege that he appeals his conviction in good faith. See State v. Atteberry, 87 Wn.2d 556, 554 P.2d 1053 (1976).