In September 2012, a Cobb County jury found appellant Waseem Daker guilty of malice murder, burglary, false imprisonment, aggravated battery and criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking. On October 1, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison and a term of years. Since his conviction, appellant has moved for a new trial and states his intention to take additional legal action including a direct appeal to this Court. Appellant is incarcerated at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison GDCP within the Special Management Unit hereinafter “SMU”. During his incarceration, appellant contends he has complained several times to prison officials about having no access to a law library or legal materials. On January 10, 2013, appellant, proceeding pro se, attempted to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court of Butts County seeking to compel the Warden to provide him access to a law library. The petition was accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On February 14, 2013, the trial court ordered the clerk not to allow filing of the mandamus petition because it concluded the petition was frivolous on its face. The trial court also denied appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellant filed an application for discretionary review and this Court granted it, posing the following question: “Whether the trial court erred in denying filing of applicant’s petition for mandamus.” Because we find error, the trial court’s order denying filing is reversed and the matter is remanded with direction.
Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 II A 97 SCt 1491, 52 LE2d 72 1977. This right of access to the courts “requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Id. at 828. See also Portis v. Evans, 249 Ga. 396 2 291 SE2d 511 1982. “Prisoner access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of constitutional rights cannot be unjustifiably denied or obstructed. Cit.” Howard v. Sharpe, 266 Ga. 771, 772 1 470 SE2d 678 1996. Meaningful access to the courts includes the right to contest the legality of a conviction. Id. Any restriction on a prisoner’s access to the courts must be “clearly warranted by the particular circumstances of each case.” Id. at 773. In keeping with Bounds, supra, this Court has upheld relief granted to an inmate who lacks access to an adequate law library. See James v. Hight, 251 Ga. 563, 564 307 SE2d 660 1983 affirming trial court’s order transferring inmate to a facility with an adequate law library. See also Portis v. Evans, supra, 249 Ga. at 397 visitation by an attorney unable to provide legal assistance to a prison without an adequate library did not comply with Bounds.
