Legal Opinion · Dissent

Howard v. Sharpe

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided May 28, 1996No. S96A0125Published

1DissentBenham, Chief Justice

I dissent from the majority’s opinion for two reasons: I believe that the habeas court’s sanctions are overly broad, and the court’s mandate that Howard obtain permission from it prior to seeking future relief is an illegal attempt to retain jurisdiction.

1. The habeas court’s prohibitions against Howard “acting as a ‘jailhouse lawyer’ ” and “giv[ing] legal assistance to any other inmates” are overly broad. The habeas court failed to specify what actions entail “acting as a ‘jailhouse lawyer,’ ” and also failed to state what conduct is encompassed in the meaning of “giv[ing] legal assistance.”…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bounds v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Bullock v. City of DallasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
  3. Anthony v. AnthonySupreme Court of Georgia · 1956
  4. Giles v. FordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1988
  5. Yizar v. AultSupreme Court of Georgia · 1995

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API