Carr v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver, 21727
| Decision Date | 17 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21727,21727 |
| Citation | 157 Colo. 226,402 P.2d 182 |
| Parties | Scotty Gene CARR, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, State of Colorado and the Honorable Edward J. Keating, Judge of Said Court, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Scotty Gene Carr, pro se.
Walter F. Scherer, Denver, for respondents.
Carr filed an original proceeding in this Court whereby he sought and obtained the issuance of a rule to show cause directed to the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver and to the Honorable Edward J. Keating, one of the judges thereof, commanding them to answer and show cause why he, the petitioner, should not be granted a free transcript of the trial proceedings in a criminal case lately pending in the said District Court wherein the petitioner was the defendant.
Thereafter the respondents filed their answer to the rule to show cause and the matter now awaits our determination as to whether the rule heretofore issued by us should be discharged or made absolute.
From the respondents' answer we learn that on September 7, 1963 Carr was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree with his punishment being fixed at life imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. In due time, Carr's motion for new trial was filed, argued and denied. Thereupon, on September 20, 1963 Carr was formally sentenced to serve a term in the State Penitentiary for the remainder of his natural life. Carr has not thereafter ever sought review by writ of error of his conviction and sentence, as such is provided by Rules 37 and 39, Colo.R.Crim.P.
On or about September 16, 1964, however, Carr did file in the respondent court an application for a free transcript, which application was denied on September 28, 1964 for the announced reason 'that more than six months had expired since the final judgment and no writ of error could [now] be issued' and that under such circumstances the 'issuance' of a free transcript would not be justified as it would be a 'vain and useless thing.'
On March 9, 1965 Carr filed with the trial court a 'Petition for a Rehearing on Motion for Free Transcript,' which petition was promptly denied.
In the petition filed in this Court, Carr seeks an order commanding the respondents to furnish him with a transcript of all proceedings in his case at the expense of the State. He pleads indigency and in a somewhat conclusory manner contends...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jurgevich v. District Court, Routt County, Colo., 95SA237
...It is not sufficient for the defendant to establish only that he is indigent and would like a free transcript. Carr v. District Court, 157 Colo. 226, 228, 402 P.2d 182, 183 (1965). Similarly, the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 48......
-
People v. Montoya
...must make a showing that the furnishing of the transcripts "would not be just a vain and useless gesture." Carr v. District Court, 157 Colo. 226, 402 P.2d 182 (1965); see also Snavely v. Shannon, 182 Colo. 223, 511 P.2d 905 (1973); Valdez v. District Court, 171 Colo. 436, 467 P.2d 825 Here,......
-
Valdez v. District Court for Pueblo County
...transcript, the petitioner must make a showing that 'the furnishing of such would not be a vain and useless gesture.' Carr v. District Court, 157 Colo. 226, 402 P.2d 182. When the time for appeal has expired, there must be a showing by the petitioner that he would be entitled to relief unde......
-
People v. Manners
...defendant must make some showing that "the furnishing of such would not be just a vain and useless gesture." Carr v. District Court, 157 Colo. 226, 228, 402 P.2d 182, 183 (1965); see also Snavely v. Shannon, 182 Colo. 223, 511 P.2d 905 (1973); People v. Montoya, 640 P.2d 234 (Colo.App.1981)......