Alfinito v. United States, Crim. No. 68-295.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 68-295. |
| Parties | Joseph ALFINITO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Petitioner (plaintiff), now in residence at the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, seeks an order of this court for production, inspection and copy of certain documents and the minutes of his arraignment, plea and sentence. His detention is directed by a judgment and commitment of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. On October 31, 1968, under a Rule 201 proceeding2, he appeared with his court-appointed counsel at Columbia, S. C., and entered a plea of guilty to violation of Title 18, Section 1343, United States Code. He was committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative for imprisonment for a period of four (4) years. The court specified the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 4208(a) (2), eligible for parole at such time as the Board of Parole might determine.
In addition to the order he seeks, he asks to proceed in forma pauperis. He is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.
This court finds guidance3 in the language of United States v. Glass, 317 F.2d 200, 202 (4th Cir. 1963):
With respect to the request for a transcript we wish to make it clear that on the record now before us we are not persuaded that Glass is entitled to a transcript at government expense, for he has shown no need for one. It is not contended, and if it were we could not uphold the contention, that an indigent may obtain a free transcript `merely for his examination in order to determine whether he wishes to engage in litigation.' An indigent is not entitled to a transcript at government expense without a showing of the need, merely to comb the record in the hope of discovering some flaw. On the other hand, we do not accept the proposition that a district court can never furnish an indigent a transcript for the purpose of instituting a collateral attack on a criminal proceeding, where he has stated a proper ground for relief and a transcript is indispensable. However, as no need for a transcript has been shown here, we find it unnecessary to delineate the circumstances in which a court may exercise this power under 28 U.S.C.A. § 753(f).
A review of his petition (motion) fails to reveal a need for the transcript, and there is no indication that a transcript would disclose matter relevant to questions sought to be raised. He charges no specific error on the part of the court, nor defines a deprivation of his constitutional privileges. In a companion document captioned, "Notice of Appeal," filed with the Clerk on October 22, 1969, petitioner "appeals"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Banks, Crim. No. 042773-86.
...proceeding, Culbert v. United States, 325 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 1964), and to a showing of particularized need. Alfinito v. United States, 305 F. Supp. 568 (D.S.C.1969).5 In Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971) the court noted that as a matter of equal pro......
-
Gibbs v. United States, Crim. A. No. 70-320.
...Martinez v. United States, 344 F.2d 325 (10 Cir.1965); Harris v. State of Nebraska, 320 F. Supp. 100 (D.Neb.1970); Alfinito v. United States, 305 F.Supp. 568 (D.S.C. 1969). Accordingly, although this Court is sensitive to the need of indigents for trial transcripts to effectively press for ......
-
Cook v. Scott Cnty.
...396 U.S. 282, 286 (1970). 23. Id. at 285. 24. Bennett v. United States, 437 F.2d 1210, 1211 (1971). See also Alfinito v. United States, 305 F. Supp. 568, 569 (D.S.C. 1969) ("[W]e do not accept the proposition that a district court can never furnish an indigent a transcript for the purpose o......