TERRY RAY CASSODAY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner, an indigent prisoner, sought via mandamus to obtain a trial transcript and copies of the warrant and information. The Florida Supreme Court held that an indigent defendant is not automatically entitled to a free trial transcript unless pursuing a pending appeal or post-conviction relief under specific rules.
An indigent defendant is not entitled to a free trial transcript merely for reviewing the record or searching for potential flaws. A transcript is only required when: (1) an appeal is pending, in which case the trial court may order transcription under court rules; (2) the defendant seeks post-conviction relief under Rule 1.850, in which case only the relevant portion of the transcript must be provided; or (3) the defendant seeks appellate review of a habeas corpus or post-conviction proceeding.
[1] An indigent convicted defendant is not entitled to a transcript of trial proceedings if no appeal is pending and no motion to vacate or correct sentence has been filed.
[2] An indigent defendant seeking post-conviction relief and appealing an adverse ruling is entitled to a transcript of the portion of the trial proceeding relevant to the mo…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A transcript of record need not be provided just for perusal or curiosity, nor for the purpose of merely enabling the prisoner to comb the record in the hope of discovering some flaw.”
Establishes that trial transcripts cannot be obtained on demand by indigent defendants; they require a legitimate purpose such as pending appeal or post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTerry Ray Cassoday was indigent at the time of his conviction and remained indigent. He sought to obtain a transcript of his trial proceedings along w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Transcript cases and more on FLexlaw
By original proceedings in mandamus, petitioner, who was indigent at the time of conviction and is presently indigent, seeks to obtain a transcript of record of the. trial proceedings, together with a copy of the warrant and information filed in his case. An alternative writ of manadmus was issued and the respondent State of Florida has filed its return to the alternative writ. The request for oral argument filed by the State is denied.
A transcript of record need not be provided just for perusal or curiosity, nor for the purpose of merely enabling the prisoner to comb the record in the hope of discovering some flaw. Washington v. Official Court Stenographer, 251 F.Supp. 945 (Pa.D.C.1966); United States ex rel. Hansler v. Pennsylvania, 294 F.Supp. 542 (Pa.D.C.1968); Wilson v. Wade, 390 F.2d 632 (Cal.C.C.A.9, 1968), cert. gr., 393 U.S. 1079, 89 S.Ct. 882, 21 L.Ed.2d 772, reversing the District Court on the merits but -not passing on the question of whether the transcript should be furnished in habeas corpus proceeding.
An accused who does not appeal from his judgment of conviction and who does not move to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, is not entitled to be supplied with a transcript of trial proceeding even though he may be indigent. Cowan v. State, 202 So.2d 831 (Fla.App.3d 1967).
If an appeal is pending, Rule 6.8, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., provides for the trial court upon motion, to order the court reporter to transcribe the notes as requested. If the appealing defendant is adjudged insolvent, the county pays the cost of the transcript.
If a convicted indigent defendant seeks post-conviction relief under the provisions of Rule 1.850, Fla.Cr.Pr.R., 33 F.S. A., he would be entitled to have the State furnish a transcript of only that portion of the trial proceeding to which his motion was directed or concerned in the event he seeks an appeal from an adverse ruling. Harris v. State, 161 So.2d 885 (Fla.App.1st, 1964); Hall v. State, 165 So.2d 428 (Fla.App.1st, 1964); Gilliard v. State, 171 So.2d 902 (Fla.App.2d, 1965); Conyers v. State, 200 So.2d 821 (Fla.App.1st, 1967).
The petitioner does not allege that the trial transcript is pertinent to any pending appeal from the judgment of conviction or from an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief.
In Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 580, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969), the United States Supreme Court held that under California habeas corpus procedure the Constitution required the furnishing of a transcript of the original habeas corpus *148proceeding to a petitioner who intended to file for a review of that proceeding in the Appellate Court. Under California procedure the judgment in habeas corpus was required to be reviewed by the filing of an original petition in the Appellate Court, and the Court analogized the California proceeding in the Appellate Court to an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus by the lower court. In other words, the basis for requiring the State to furnish a transcript of trial proceeding was the fact that the petitioner was seeking a review of his proceeding by an Appellate Court. This is similar to an appeal in Florida from an order denying a motion under Rule 1.850 and the holding of the Supreme Court is not contrary to the decisions of the Florida court.
In the case sub judice, there is no allegation that the transcript is necessary for appellate review, and the petitioner has shown no other reason for needing the transcript. Therefore, this Court should not require that one be furnished.
The alternative writ of mandamus is quashed and the petition is
Dismissed.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Kurtis J. Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…unction with pending motions for post-conviction relief. The trial courts were correct in their understanding that prisoners may not be entitled to portions of their trial transcripts to prepare pro se post-conviction motions. See Cassoday v. State, 237 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1970); Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). A prisoner may, however, also request records under the public records law. A chapter 119 records request may be made to prepare a motion for post-conviction relief. See Kokal, 562 So. 2d…
-
Brown v. Wainwright, 264 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1972)…y way of habeas corpus a belated appeal under the authority of Bagget v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1970), and if successful, then to obtain a transcript. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, TJ., concur. . Cassoday v. State, 237 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1970).…
-
Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ts of preparing the record on appeal. However, “[a] transcript of record need not be provided just for perusal or curiosity, nor for the purpose of merely enabling the prisoner to comb the record in hope of discovering some flaw.” Cassoday v. State, 237 So. 2d 146, 147 (Fla.1970). Rather, a prisoner seeking post-conviction relief must first prepare and file his motion before he may secure those portions of the record relevant to that motion. Dorch v. State, 483 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Griffith v. Stat…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1969)
- Wilson v. Wade, 390 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Hall v. State, 165 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Harris v. State, 161 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Gilliard v. State, 171 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Bryson v. United States, 393 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1969)
- Wade v. Wilson, 393 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1969)
- Conyers v. State, 200 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Cowan v. State, 202 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)