Giles v. Ford, 45424
| Decision Date | 26 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 45424,45424 |
| Citation | 258 Ga. 245,368 S.E.2d 318 |
| Parties | GILES v. FORD, Warden. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Oliver Giles, pro se.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., J. Michael Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for John Ford, Warden.
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Ben L. Weinberg, Jr., Daniel M. Jennings, amicus curiae.
Giles, a prisoner in the state system, attempted to file a pro se in forma pauperis petition for habeas corpus in Muscogee County Superior Court. The court disallowed the filing based on OCGA § 9-15-2(d). That section permits a trial court to deny the filing of a pro se in forma pauperis complaint after determining that on its face the pleading completely lacks justiciable law or fact. Giles maintains that this statute does not apply to habeas petitions, because OCGA § 9-14-41 et seq "... provides the exclusive procedure for seeking a writ of habeas corpus for persons whose liberty is being restrained by virtue of a sentence imposed against them by a state court of record." OCGA § 9-14-41.
1. Any limitation upon the right to the writ of habeas corpus must be reviewed in light of the United States constitutional protection of the privilege to the writ. Art. I, Sec. 9. The Georgia legislature enacted the state habeas corpus chapter to expand the scope of state habeas thereby bringing it into accord with the federal constitutional privilege to federal habeas corpus. OCGA § 9-14-40. Under the expanded view in this chapter, the assumption is that a prisoner should have wide latitude in filing a petition for habeas corpus. For example, a petition may not be dismissed for failure to comply with technical procedural requirements. Mitchell v. Forrester, 247 Ga. 622, 278 S.E.2d 368 (1981).
We have held habeas corpus proceedings subject to the CPA only to the extent of the mechanical procedures listed in OCGA § 9-11-81. For example, the CPA governs the sufficiency of pleadings, admissibility of evidence under the petition as drawn and amendments to the petition. Johnson v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 548, 192 S.E.2d 900 (1972). The issue here involves not the question of how to proceed, but rather the more critical question of whether the petitioner may proceed. OCGA § 9-15-2(d) is not incorporated into the CPA, nor is it in accord with the spirit set forth in the habeas corpus chapter which affirms and expands prisoners' right of access to the courts. We do not believe that this section was meant to apply to habeas corpus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Turpin, S97R1412.
...528, 530 (1985). 9. Ga. Const. Art. I, § I, Par. XV. 10. See Howard v. Sharpe, 266 Ga. 771, 772, 470 S.E.2d 678 (1996); Giles v. Ford, 258 Ga. 245, 368 S.E.2d 318 (1988); Johnson v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 548, 550, 192 S.E.2d 900 (1972). 11. Howard v. Sharpe, 266 Ga. 771, 772, 470 S.E.2d 678 (19......
-
Fullwood v. Sivley
...the habeas court correctly informed Fullwood of the proper procedure for obtaining appellate review of its order. Cf. Giles v. Ford, 258 Ga. 245, 368 S.E.2d 318 (1988) (classified as a "habeas" Although Fullwood was informed as to the proper appellate procedure, he failed to comply with OCG......
-
In re Lawsuits of Carter
...pleading and thereby certify that the pleading is not interposed for delay. OCGA § 9-11-11. 12. OCGA § 9-11-11.1. 13. Giles v. Ford, 258 Ga. 245, 368 S.E.2d 318 (1988). 14. OCGA § 9-15-2(d). 15. Howard v. Sharpe, 266 Ga. 771, 470 S.E.2d 678 (1996) (order requiring approval of habeas judge a......
-
Howard v. Sharpe, S96A0125
...convictions and to seek redress for violations of constitutional rights cannot be unjustifiably denied or obstructed. Giles v. Ford, 258 Ga. 245(1), 368 S.E.2d 318 (1988). In this State, meaningful access to the courts includes the right to contest the legality of a conviction or the consti......