No. 80-1545 | Ohio | Mar 25, 1981
This court has held in a long line of cases that the state has a duty to provide an indigent defendant with only a single trial transcript for the purpose of an effective appeal. E.g., State v. Froto (1958), 168 Ohio St. 281; State, ex rel. Vitoratos, v. Walsh (1962), 173 Ohio St. 467; State, ex rel. Terrell, v. Court (1963), 174 Ohio St. 209; State, ex rel. Vitoratos, v. Morris (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 3" court="Ohio" date_filed="1970-04-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-ex-rel-vitoratos-v-morris-6754414?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6754414">22 Ohio St. 2d 3.
“Griffin v. Illinois and its progeny establish the principle that the State must, as a matter of equal protection, provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners. While the outer limits of that principle are not clear, there can be no doubt that the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal.” Britt v. North Carolina (1971), 404 U.S. 226" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1971-12-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/britt-v-north-carolina-108412?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108412">404 U. S. 226, 227. See, also, State v. Arrington (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 114" court="Ohio" date_filed="1975-04-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-arrington-6755461?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6755461">42 Ohio St. 2d 114, 116.
Appellant was provided with a basic tool for his appeal when Judge Hill granted his request for a single trial transcript. The constitutional requirements were met and, thus, Judge Hill was not under a clear duty to provide a second transcript for appellant. State, ex rel. Terrell, supra, at page 210. Therefore, the Court of Appeals properly denied appellant’s request for a writ of mandamus.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.