2006-504, STATE OF NH v. TIMOTHY DUPONT

Kelly A. Ayotte

No. 2006-504 Hillsborough-northern judicial district

of sixty-nine counts of felonious sexual assault. See The record supports the following. The defendant was convicted in 2001

corpus petition in federal district court, which was denied. Dupont v. Coplan

Timothy Dupont, by brief, pro

No. Civ. 03-287-M, 2003 WL 22037315, at *4 (D.N.H. Aug. 27, 2003). The

149 N.H. 70 (2003). Through counsel, the defendant then filed a habeas The defendant appealed and we affirmed his convictions in State v. Dupont, page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. RSA 632-A:3, III (1996). a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 transcripts at the State’s expense. We affirm. Superior Court (Barry, J.) denying his request for the preparation of hearing HICKS, J. The defendant, Timothy Dupont, appeals the order of the

general, on the memorandum of law), for the State. to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: , attorney general (Nicholas Cort, assistant attorney

editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as secure those portions of the record relevant to the motion.” Woodfaulk v.

p. 2 postconviction relief must first prepare and file his motion before he may

preparation of a postconviction motion. Rather, a prisoner seeking review issues of constitutional law de needed has been filed. “There is no right to free transcripts for use in Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. We must demonstrate that a motion or petition in which the transcripts are defendant cites Part I, Articles 8, 14, and 15 of the New Hampshire

automatically entitled to transcripts at State expense. The defendant first 2 and federal due process rights and his federal equal protection rights. The

Post-conviction and post-appeal, however, an indigent defendant is not The defendant argues that the superior court’s order violates his state standard to federal postconviction claims); State ex rel. Murr v. Thierry, 517 This appeal followed. also United States v. Losing, 601 F.2d 351, 352 (8th Cir. 1979) (applying same State, 935 So. 2d 1225, 1227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (citation omitted); see expense when preparing for trial, State v. Brown An indigent defendant is entitled to transcripts as of right at State

proceeding, such as a habeas corpus petition.

appellate rights. His conviction was appealed and affirmed in 2003. See proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal.”). (“[T]he State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior rights. The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. (1998), or for an appeal, Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1971)

seeks, therefore, can only be for the purpose of pursuing a successive collateral Dupont, No. 2006-0251 (N.H. May 17, 2006). The transcripts the defendant claims. The defendant appealed and we declined to accept his appeal, see dismissal of his post-conviction motions was declined in May 2006. State v. and ultimately issued a forty-nine page order dismissing all of the defendant’s Dupont, 149 N.H. at 83. In addition, his appeal from the superior court’s

As the superior court noted, the defendant in this case has exhausted his

court denied the motion, noting that the defendant had exhausted his appellate for guidance only, id. at 232-33. transcripts of five hearings held in 2004 and 2005 at the State’s expense. The, 124 N.H. 226, 232 (1983), and cite federal opinions The defendant then filed a motion with the superior court requesting 240 (2003). We first address the defendant’s claim under the State

with the superior court. The court held several hearings in 2004 and 2005, defendant subsequently filed numerous post-conviction pleadings and motions

State v. Dupont, No. 2006-0251 (N.H. May 17, 2006). transcripts. See

concurred.

beneficial to him; the defendant must demonstrate a genuine need for the petition, he is not entitled to transcripts merely because they would be . Once the defendant has demonstrated he has filed such a motion or further discussion. See

does the State Constitution under these circumstances. MacCollom BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS, DUGGAN and GALWAY, JJ., The Federal Constitution offers the defendant no greater protection than

expired”).

The defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit and warrant no omitted)), cert Constitution.

A f f i r m e d not apply where] the time for appeal from the judgment ha[s] long since

any such petition. habeas corpus petition, he has not demonstrated that he has currently filed merely to comb the record in the hope of discovering some flaw.” (quotation pending). Although the defendant here may choose to pursue a state or federal reach the same result under the Federal Constitution as we do under the State at p. 3 325-28; Losing, 601 F.2d at 352; Brown, 143 N.H. at 199. Accordingly, we

criminal case “is entitled to a reporter’s transcript at state expense . . . [does (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1952) (holding that the general rule that a defendant in a

. denied, 410 U.S. 944 (197 p. 3 3); People v. Sparks, 246 P.2d 64, 65

entitled to a transcript at government expense without a showing of the need, entitled to a free transcript when an appeal or postconviction action is Virginia State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 152 (4th Cir. 1972) (“[A]n indigent is not N.E.2d 226, 226-27 (Ohio 1987) (holding that an indigent prisoner is only U.S. p. 3 317, 325-28 (1976) (plurality opinion); see also Jones v. Superintendent,

Brown, 14 p. 3 3 N.H. at 199; United States v. MacCollom, 426