Todd Allen Agar v. Kati J. Bartrand, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Todd Allen Agar’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking trial transcripts from his Michigan criminal case. The court held that mandamus was unavailable to challenge his conviction or direct Michigan state officials to provide transcripts, and that Agar had no federal constitutional right to submit a pro se appellate brief in addition to counsel’s brief. The court denied Agar’s numerous ancillary motions as moot and closed the case.

Holdings

1. A challenge to a state-court conviction or the custody resulting from it must proceed through a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not a petition for a writ of mandamus.
2. Agar was not entitled to mandamus relief because he did not demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to an order compelling state officials to provide the requested transcripts.
3. A criminal defendant represented by appellate counsel has no federal constitutional right to self-representation or hybrid representation on direct appeal and therefore cannot establish a constitutional right to trial transcripts solely to prepare a separate pro se appellate brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a federal district court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel state court officials to provide trial transcripts or restore a state-court appeal.
2. Whether mandamus may be used to directly challenge or overturn a state criminal conviction.
3. Whether a criminal defendant represented by appellate counsel has a federal constitutional right to submit a separate pro se brief on direct appeal and obtain transcripts for that purpose.
4. Whether the petitioner's additional discovery, dispositive, amendment, contempt, injunction, and related motions should be granted after denial of the mandamus petition.

Disposition

other