Opinion ID: 2383423
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Manipulation Unnecessary Delay Inadequate Appellate Record

Text: Slater's first claim of error relates to what he characterizes as unnecessary delay caused by the State's manipulation of the judicial process. Slater contends that the Superior Court indictment, arising from crimes which were alleged to have occurred on January 27, 1990, should have been dismissed. According to Slater, the State's decision not to proceed against him on the original misdemeanor charges in the Family Court caused an unnecessary delay in presenting the felony charges to the grand jury until September 17, 1990. See Super.Ct.Crim.R. 48(b). [4] See also State v. Fischer, Del.Supr., 285 A.2d 417 (1971). As a corollary, Slater also contends that the State's delay denied Slater his constitutional rights to a speedy trial. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Del.Const. art. I, § 7. The State points out that Slater has failed to include in the appellate record a transcript of the hearing at which Slater's pretrial motion to dismiss was argued and denied, as required by the rules of this Court. See Supr.Ct.R. 9(e)(ii), 14(e). The State argues that this deficiency in the record before this Court precludes appellate review of the propriety of the Superior Court's ruling on Slater's pretrial motion to dismiss. Slater does not dispute that neither a transcript of the pretrial hearing on his motion to dismiss nor the Superior Court's ruling on that motion are included in the record. Supreme Court Rules 9(e)(ii) and 14(e) direct all parties to order a transcript and to include in their appendix those portions of the record which are relevant to any claims on appeal. Tricoche v. State, Del. Supr., 525 A.2d 151, 154 (1987). Those same rules place the burden upon the appellant of producing such portions of the trial transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate account of the context in which the claim of error occurred. Id. Therefore, the record provided to this Court by an appellant must include a transcript of all evidence relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion. Id. In the present case, Slater, as the appellant, had the burden of providing this Court with a transcript of the pretrial hearing on his motion to dismiss so that this Court had a fair and accurate account of the context in which the claim of error occurred. Id. Without a transcript of the pretrial hearing, at which Slater's pretrial motion to dismiss was raised and ruled upon, this Court has no adequate basis for evaluating the merits of Slater's claim that the State caused unnecessary delay, by purportedly manipulating the judicial process to Slater's detriment. See Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d at 154. Consequently, Slater's failure to comply with the rules of this Court precludes our appellate review of his contention that the Superior Court erred in denying his pretrial motion to dismiss. Id.