State v. Harris

Summary

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas’ denial of Terry Harris’s motion for discovery and transcripts. The court held that discovery is not available at the initial stage of post-conviction proceedings and that Harris was not entitled to a second transcript at state expense after receiving one for his direct appeal.

Holdings

1. The trial court lacked authority to order discovery because Ohio law does not make discovery available in the initial stages of a postconviction proceeding and the power to conduct and compel such discovery is not included within the trial court's statutorily defined authority.
2. An indigent defendant is entitled to one transcript for the entire judicial system, but not to a second transcript sent to the defendant in prison for use in prospective postconviction proceedings when the defendant has already received a transcript for the direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court had authority to order discovery at the initial stage of a possible postconviction proceeding.
2. Whether Harris was entitled to a second transcript at state expense after already receiving one transcript for his direct appeal.

Disposition

affirmed