when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal.” Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971). The Supreme Court has held that indigent defendants must be provided with various portions of the trial transcript. See, e.g., id. at 228, 92 S.Ct. 431 (stating that the transcript of a prior mistrial ordinarily can be assumed to be valuable to a defendant, although ultimately finding no error because an alternative to the transcript existed); Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U.S. 458, 458-59, 89 S.Ct. 1818, 23 L.Ed.2d 440 (1969) (per curiam) (finding constitutional error where the state provided no trial transcript to an indigent defendant on appeal); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 370-71, 89 S.Ct. 580, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Long v. Dist. Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192,
holding that dismissing a habeas petition as timebarred under the aedpa does not violate the suspension clause because petitioner had years to file the petition and gave no explanation why he failed to file on time holding that this court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court order which remanded the case so that a new hearing examiner could be appointed and a new hearing conducted where the appellant raised the issue of commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions during the original hearing holding that the indigent defendant had to be provided with a transcript of an evidentiary hearing from his original trial so that he could file a new habeas petition holding that where tjhere was no dispute from the trial record and between the parties that the defendant requested his counsel to file a notice of appeal and that counsel did not timely file such a disposition was appropriate despite any potential jurisdictional problems in part to avoid the potential that a habeas petition seeking the same relief would use up the defendants opportunity for a first petition and to obviate the risk that a habeas petition would be untimely holding that before denying petition trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and state specific reasons for denying the petition