Court Opinion

ID: 9571363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:31:12.692425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:21.308678
License: Public Domain

Holbrook, J.
(dissenting). This writer accepts the counter-statement of issue involved which is stated by the people as follows:
*348“Is a convicted criminal defendant entitled to free copies of the circuit court records of his case where the trial court at sentencing informed him in open court as well as in writing of his constitutional right to appellate review; free counsel and records to perfect such appeal if indigent, and that such petition must be filed with the trial court within 60 days of sentencing to be timely, and failure to timely file would result in loss of the right to timely appeal, free counsel and records, and appellant stated that he understood those rights, but where defendant files his petition for free records 90 days after sentencing, but fails to show that the delay in filing was not due to his culpable negligence, and fails to show that he has a meritorious basis for either post-conviction motions or an appeal?”
Defendant was charged in the Genesee County prosecuting attorney’s information with unlawfully driving away an automobile. MCLA § 750.413 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.645).
On June 20,1969, defendant, who was represented by counsel, appeared before the Honorable Stewart A. Newblatt for the specific purpose of withdrawing his previously entered not guilty plea and entering a plea of guilty to the charge contained in the information. The guilty plea of defendant was tendered by defendant and accepted by the trial court in conformity with the requirements of GCR 1963, 785-.3(2).
On August 5, 1969, defendant, with his counsel, appeared before the trial court for sentencing. The sentence imposed was for imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not less than four and one-half nor more than five years.
At the conclusion of sentencing, defendant was advised of his constitutional right to appellate review. The reporter’s transcript reflects the following:
*349“The Court: It’s my duty to inform yon that you have a constitutional right to appeal your conviction. If you’re financially unable to hire an attorney to perfect that appeal, the court would appoint an attorney for you and would furnish that attorney with such portions of the record of these proceedings as that attorney would require to prepare any post-conviction motions or to take an appeal in your behalf.
“I further advise you that if you claim financial inability to hire your own attorney, and you want the court to appoint an attorney for you, you should make that request to the court within sixty days from today.
“I will give you some forms for you to fill out. To do that, you should fill out these forms, sign them under oath and return them to me within sixty days or it will have three consequences. First, you will lose your right to appeal; secondly, you lose your right to have an attorney appointed at public expense and; thirdly, you will lose your right to have a transcript of these proceedings furnished to you at public expense. Do you understand that, Mr. Cross ?
“TheDefendant: Yes, sir.
“The Court: I will give you the forms at this time and ask that you sign the top one as a receipt, please.

(Whereupon defendant signed receipt for above-mentioned form)

“Thank you, Mr. Cross. You may be seated.”
In a petition dated November 6, 1969, defendant, in propria persona, requested that the trial court enter an order directing the Genesee County Clerk to furnish him with ALL the transcripts and records in his case free of charge because of his alleged indigent status.
Defendant’s petition was brought on for hearing on November 17, 1969, before the Honorable Elza H. Papp (alternate of Judge Stewart A. Newblatt).
*350Defendant’s request was denied by the trial court in its order dated November 17, 1969.
The denial was based on essentially these grounds: First, defendant had been advised by the sentencing judge of his constitutional right to appellate review; second, defendant had been advised of his right to appellate counsel at public expense and free records ; and that requests for the same were to be made to the court within sixty days of sentencing on a form which had been furnished to defendant at his sentencing; third, defendant was informed that failure to timely petition the trial court would result in the loss of the right to timely appeal, free appellate counsel, and free records. Thus, defendant’s tardy petition in this cause, after being advised of his rights at sentencing and the applicable time limitations, and without a showing that the delay in filing his petition was not due to defendant’s culpable negligence, appropriately called for denial of his requests.
Defendant now appeals to this Court filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which is treated as an application for leave to appeal. It appears that defendant’s contention is that the trial court’s denial of his petition for free records should be reversed.
GCR 1963, 803.3 provides as follows:
“Delayed Appeal. After expiration of the period for timely appeal, the Court of Appeals may, in its discretion, grant leave to appeal from any order or judgment from which timely appeal would have been available either as of right or by leave, upon showing, supported by affidavit, that there is merit in the grounds for appeal and that the delay was not due to appellant’s culpable negligence.”
G-CR 1963, 806.4(2) provides in part:
“Where timely appeal would have been of right, application for delayed appeal need not be accom*351panied by settled statement of facts but shall affirmatively show, by statement of facts and brief, that there is merit in the claim of appeal and, by affidavit of facts, that the delay was not due to appellant’s culpable negligence.”
Defendant has not shown any meritorious basis for an appeal nor has he shown why he waited over ninety days from the time of his sentence to file a petition for the free records because of his alleged indigent status.
Defendant bases his claim for relief on the premise that a person who is able to purchase a transcript should be in no better position than an indigent person and that the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution requires the Court to furnish to him at this time, without cost, a copy of the records and transcript. That he was entitled to such free transcript and records is unquestioned provided he had followed the General Court Rules of the State of Michigan. This he did not do.
In United States v. Shoaf (CA 4, 1964), 341 F2d 832, Judge Haynsworth said that an indigent defendant is not entitled to a free transcript for a keepsake nor, with no showing of need, to comb such record in hope of discovering some flaw.
In State v. Brazell (1968), 15 Ohio App 2d 104, 108 (239 NE2d 125), the Court in part stated:
“Defendant claims that he is entitled to a transcript of the proceedings of his original trial at the taxpayers’ expense. To enable him to receive such transcript, he either must be within rule at the time the request is made or have a motion for leave to appeal granted. State ex rel. Catlino v. Clerk of Common Pleas Court (1967), 9 Ohio St 2d 101 (224 NE2d 130). Inasmuch as defendant does not now have an appeal pending, he, therefore, is not entitled to copies of the records furnished him at state expense,” *352See also People v. Rivera (1969), 60 Misc 2d 414 (303 NYS2d 1); Williams v. Peyton (WD Va, 1969), 297 F Supp 857.
Absent a showing of a meritorious basis for an appeal and a satisfactory explanation showing that the delay was not due to defendant’s culpable negligence, it appears to this writer that defendant is not entitled to have furnished him free of charge the records and transcript concerning his conviction in the trial court. People v. Gorka (1969), 381 Mich 515; Jensen v. Menominee Circuit Judge (1969), 382 Mich 535; People v. Berry (1970), 384 Mich 270; and Calhoun v. Macomb Circuit Judge (1968), 15 Mich App 416.
Defendant having not complied with the Genera] Court Rules nor having cited any case in the United States Supreme Court directly in point requiring the state to furnish transcripts and records to a defendant under similar circumstances, I would rule as did the trial court and affirm.