Eskridge v. Washington State Board Prison Terms Paroles

• Decision Date: 16 June 1958
• Docket Number: No. 96,96
• Citation: 2 L.Ed.2d 1269,357 U.S. 214,78 S.Ct. 1061
• Parties: Tom ESKRIDGE, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON STATE BOARD of PRISON TERMS and PAROLES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

357 U.S. 214

78 S.Ct. 1061

2 L.Ed.2d 1269

Tom ESKRIDGE, Petitioner,

v WASHINGTON STATE BOARD of PRISON TERMS and PAROLES.

No. 96.

Argued May 19, 1958.

Decided June 16, 1958.

Mr. Robert W. Graham, Seattle, Wash., for the petitioner.

Mr. John J. O'Connell, Olympia, Wash., for the respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Constitution of the State of Washington provides: 'In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have * * * the right to appeal in all cases * * *.'Wash.Const., Amend. 10.In 1935, after petitioner was convicted of murder in a Washington state court and sentenced to life imprisonment, he gave timely notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State.Washington law authorizes a trial judge to have a stenographic transcript of trial proceedings furnished an indigent defendnat at public expense 'if in his opinion justice will thereby be promoted.'Remington's Wash.Rev.Stat., 1932, § 42—5.Alleging substantial errors in his trial petitioner moved for a free transcript.The trial judge denied this motion, finding that 'justice would not be promoted * * * in that defendant has been accorded a fair and impartial trial, and in the Court's opinion no grave defendant at public expense 'if in Petitioner then moved in the State Supreme Court for writ of mandate ordering the trial judge to have a transcript furnished for the prosecution of his appeal.The Supreme Court denied this petition and simultaneously granted the State's motion to dismiss petitioner's appeal for failure to file a certified 'statement of facts' and 'transcript of record.'In 1956petitioner applied for habeas corpus in the Washington Supreme Court charging that failure to furnish a free transcript of the proceedings had violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.His petition was denied without opinion and we granted certiorari.353 U.S. 922, 77 S.Ct. 683, 1 L.Ed.2d 719.

In this Courtthe State does not deny petitioner's allegations of poverty, the substantiality of the trial errors he alleges, or the necessity for him to have some record of the proceedings in order to prosecute his appeal properly.It does argue that petitioner might have utilized notes compiled by someone other than the official court reporter.Assuming that under some circumstances such notes could be an adequate substitute for a court reporter's transcript there is nothing in this record to show that any were available to petitioner, and the Washington courts appear to have proceeded on the assumption that he could not effectively prosecute his appeal...