Opinion ID: 1127469
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Access to Library

Text: Both defendants filed motions to gain access to legal materials and the county law library, which the trial court denied. In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of access to the courts requires the state to provide adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. (emphasis added). See also Findlay v. Lewis, 172 Ariz. 343, 346, 837 P.2d 145, 148 (1992) (citing Bounds ); Knight v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 551, 555, 779 P.2d 1290, 1294 (App. 1989) ([W]hen an inmate is denied access to a law library for security or other reasons, and when alternative means are satisfied by his having the assistance of persons trained in the law, the court need not order direct library access.); Berry v. Department of Corrections, 144 Ariz. 318, 320-21, 697 P.2d 711, 713-14 (App. 1985) (Neither Bounds nor its progeny requires that every state correctional facility and every county and city jail provide access to an extensive law library.). Because defendants were provided with either advisory counsel or counsel throughout their proceedings, their constitutional right to court access was met, regardless of whether they had personal access to legal materials. See State v. Henry, 176 Ariz. 569, 584, 863 P.2d 861, 876 (1993).