Opinion ID: 1368663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Presentence investigator's withholding of information from petitioner's criminal trial counsel.

Text: Petitioner has alleged in the complaint in this proceeding that the presentence investigator withheld information from petitioner's trial counsel that prejudiced his ability adequately to represent petitioner. Our review of the transcript and of the exhibits discloses that the probable subject of complaint here is that the presentence reporter withheld from trial counsel parts of petitioner's juvenile records. There is not one bit of evidence as to what those parts, if they existed, would have revealed. Understandably, appellate counsel in the instant matter is unable to argue what they showed or how petitioner was prejudiced in this respect. The post-conviction court properly rejected this nonsensical claim. Further claimed error. Petitioner has made three assignments of error arising from the trial of this post-conviction proceeding. He contends: (1) The court erred in denying his request for postponement. (2) The court erred in denying his request for new counsel. (3) The court erred in denying his request for post-trial depositions of the criminal trial district attorney and the presentence report author. Petitioner was called as first witness in this trial. He stated: I'd like to ask for a continuance until we can get some further depositions and subpoena the D.A.'s file and the prosecutor's file so that you can see whatever comments were made by the D.A.'s [sic] in their file when they gave it to the PSI writer. And if we can't do that, I'd like to get appointed a different attorney. The court denied the motion for continuance and for a new attorney. In his brief in the Court of Appeals, petitioner asserted: Petitioner's post-conviction counsel was not prepared for trial and was not prepared to present evidence in support of Petitioner's post-conviction claims. He argues that the lack of preparedness was the failure to obtain the depositions and file mentioned in his statement. He makes no attempt to show how he was prejudiced by the failure to have on hand whatever comments might be in those files. In light of our discussion concerning the accuracy of the presentence report, which is what the sentencing judge saw, we do not see what relevancy there might have been to sentencing in something the judge did not see. Petitioner gave no reasons to the trial judge as to why he was entitled to new counsel. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying that request. Petitioner's trial counsel finally moved to supplement the record with depositions of the presentence reporter and the District Attorney's office and to examine the information in the district attorney's file that might have been given to or seen by the reporter. The motions were denied. For the reasons we have already discussed, there is nothing to show that the sentencing judge had any information before him other than what was in the presentence report, which petitioner concedes he saw prior to sentencing and concedes was accurate. There is no error in this respect. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the trial court are affirmed.