Landry

*425 MEMORANDUM *

Ernest Landry appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. Landry argues that the state appellate court violated his constitutional right to an adequate record on appeal by denying his request for the transcript of the entire voir dire, which he sought to pursue a challenge under People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 (1978). We affirm.

In Britt v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court held that a “state must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal.” 404 U.S. 226, 227 , 92 S.Ct. 431 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971). The Britt Court identified two factors relevant to determining whether a given transcript is necessary for an adequate defense: “(1) the value of the transcript to the defendant in connection with the appeal or trial for which it is sought, and (2) the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the same functions of a transcript.” Id.

Landry argues first that the transcript of the entire voir dire—as opposed to the voir dire of only the challenged jurors—is necessary because comparative analysis…

dissenting.

I dissent from the majority’s holding because I believe that a transcript of the entire voir dire is necessary to effectively challenge a trial court’s finding that a prosecutor’s strikes were not racially motivated, see Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 363 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), and that the refusal to afford Landry the voir dire transcript was contrary to or an unreasonable application of the rule established in Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227-28 , 92 S.Ct. 431 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971).