holding that the state could not deny an indigent criminal appellant a transcript to appeal pro se from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis, or permit that the appellant, “at the will of the Public Defender, be entirely cut off from any appeal at all”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the state could not deny an indigent criminal appellant a transcript to appeal pro se from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis, or permit that the appellant, “at the will of the Public Defender, be entirely cut off from any appeal at all”
- invalidating an Indiana rule that, on appeal from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis, only the public defender could obtain a free transcript of the lower court's hearing on the coram nobis application; if the public defender refused to represent the applicant, no transcript was provided, and, as a result, the applicant had no appeal at all
- invalidating state procedure whereby meaningful appeal was possible only if public defender requested a transcript
- striking down Indiana law that only public defender could obtain free transcript of hearing on coram nobis application; thus, if public defender declined to request one, indigent could not obtain a transcript
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Miller, 337 Md. 71 (1994)
Lane, however, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar and actually reinforces the principle that complete preclusion of appellate review is what must be prevented under Griffin.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Harlan,
in which Mr. Justice Clark concurs.
I think it falls short of the requirements of due process for a State to foreclose an indigent from appealing in a case such as this at the unreviewable discretion of a Public Defender by whom, or by whose office, the indigent has been represented at the trial. It ignores the human equation not to recognize the possibility that a Public *486 Defender so circumstanced may decide not to appeal questions which a lawyer who has had no previous connection with the case might consider worthy of appellate review. (I do not of course remotely intimate that such is the situation here.)
Were it clear that the decision of this Public Defender not to appeal had been subject to judicial review at the instance of the prisoner, I should have voted to sustain this conviction. However, the State Attorney General has candidly informed us that the Indiana law is unclear on this score.
Accordingly, while agreeing with the Court’s action in remanding this case, I would instruct the District Court to discharge the prisoner only if the Indiana Supreme Court fails, within a reasonable time, to accord him a review of the Public Defender’s decision not to appeal the denial of coram nobis.