Document: 393 U.S. 367 89 S.Ct. 580 21 L.Ed.2d 601 Robert Newton GARDNER, Jr., Petitioner,v.State of CALIFORNIA. No. 73. Argued Nov. 20, 1968. Decided Jan. 1969. Charles E. Rickershauser, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Jack K. Weber, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner is a California state prisoner who filed pro se various papers with State Superior Court alleging action that interfered h § access to courts determination his claims. The Court, which granted hearing and designated Public Defender's office represent petitioner at hearing, treated as requests habeas corpus relief. After it made findings held had not impaired petitioner's rights courts. 2 Under law, while has an appeal from order discharging in proceeding,1 no where petition denied. See Loustalot v. 30 Cal.2d 905, 913, 186 P.2d 673, 677—678. But he may file either intermediate Appeal or Supreme Court.2 As instant case desired pursue remedy higher courts, asked free transcript evidentiary before His motion was denied sought review denial by certiorari District Appeal. It denied, timely We writ certiorari, 391 902, 88 1656, 20 417, consider whether rulings below squared our decisions Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, Long 385 192, 87 362, 17 290. 3 reverse judgment below. If this involved Court's corpus, rule would prevent allowing petitioner, indigent, record makes any appellate meaningful, according full all have money pay their own why. This, however, but drafting new original court. That must reflect what transpired statute provides:3 4 'Every application be verified, shall prior applications been regard same detention restraint complained application, if such later contain brief statement proceedings therein, them, including final orders on otherwise.' 5 argued since attended can draw memory preparing And court, troubled, always obtain lower court.4 we deal adversary system initiative rests moving party. Without prepared only lay memory5 For effective presentation need evidence weighed rejected present most favorable light. Certainly lawyer, accustomed precise points law nuances testimony, lost without transcript, save perhaps unusual exceptional case. having below, conscious skepticism prevails above when second sorely petitioning court merits were stake. A layman hence needs even more. 6 said send deduce there merit another hearing. philosophy make tribunal parens patriae indigent litigant. suffice hearings why cases appeal? Since one, carries burden convincing inadequate legal conclusions facts deduced erroneous. therefore obvious starting point those try out hardly contend irrelevant specifically provides upon request, attorney. So long repeated exists so transcripts are available preparation cases, they furnished afford them paupers. 7 There suggestion adequate substitute6 stenographic transcript. conclude context California's procedure marks invidious discrimination impermissible appeals criminal practical effect indigents. 8 Reversed. 9 BLACK concurs reversal except 370 required here. He that, stated necessity reason automatically require supply one like 10 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 11 holds today whose entitled proceeding, aid him 'preparing' 'presenting' entirely In holding, misconceives nature post-conviction procedure, imposes financial offset appreciable benefit 12 1475 Penal Code, applicant relief de novo noted, self-contained independent proceeding. (Appendix 43.) neither nor requested assign errors, refer inform proceeding took place collateral data, held, disposition, etc.1 initial question court—as examining whether, taking factual allegations proved, states claim granted. determines stated, will referee conduct hearing.2 13 constitutional requirement hear, of, testimony support which, constitute grounds relief.3 Cf. Draper Washington, 372 487, 495 496, 83 774, 778—779, 899 (1963). Nor materially framing subsequent petition. To sure, incidental convenience—so, too, daily trial Fourteenth Amendment does furnish every luxury wealthy litigant might conceivably choose purchase. id., 779. 14 Neither 290 (1966), other decision suggests constitutionally defective. simply 'no provision (on corpus) * furnishing payment fee *,' level. purposes, could effectively review.4 contradistinction, alleges entitle afforded opportunity prove facts. 15 purpose effect, dissimilar federal whereby appealing provided 'the judge circuit certifies frivolous needed decide issue presented appeal.' 28 U.S.C. 753(f) (1964 ed., Supp. III). Both procedures responsive immense volume respective systems. sensible practical. equitable fair 16 I affirm. Calif.Penal Code 1506. Calif.Const., Art. 6, 10; Calif. 1475; Rules 50 190, Calif.Rules 1475. Rule 60, provides: 'When reviewing seeking release custody confined under process State, passing petition, desires information concerning matter pertaining person, custodian produce certified copy thereof clerk court.' also S. Weigel & L. Burke, State-Federal Post Conviction Problems, Federal Judicial Center Report 101 (1968). While assigned counsel assignment did cover further pursuit 591. form Petition Release Modification Custody, amended January 1, 1966, approved Council use 56.5 201(f) 60 ante, 369 n. 4, earlier connection, worth noting affidavit ruled against him, 'not claims, interpretation secured Amendment.' 41—42.) apparently reached conclusion merits. express view subject petitions pending Term Gardner California, 7, Misc., 10, Misc. Similarly, Smith Bennett, 365 708, 81 895, 39 (1961), condition docketing allowance filing fee; Lane Brown, 477, 768, 892 (1963), invalid coram nobis perfected within public defender's exclusive discretion request prepared. distinctions between these too discussion.

Category: 1