Sparks fly in appeals court ruling on career offenders
Judges on the federal appeals court in Atlanta this week exchanged extraordinarily pointed barbs in a ruling that defense attorneys say could prevent hundreds of inmates from being able to correct improper prison terms.
A senior judge called the court "morally bankrupt" for issuing the ruling, while a judge in the majority accused his dissenting colleagues of raising "silly" and "absurd" arguments.
The case rejected an appeal by a Tampa drug dealer, but sets precedent for cases in Georgia that involve defendants whose prison sentences are impacted by later court rulings.
"This could affect many, many criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced in federal courts throughout Georgia," said Regina Stephenson, a federal defender in Atlanta who specializes in appeals.
In the ruling, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims raised by Ezell Gilbert, who in 1997 received an enhanced sentence of 24 years and four months in prison because he qualified as a career offender. On his direct appeal, Gilbert challenged his sentence, saying one of the underlying convictions -- carrying a concealed weapon -- should not not have been used to qualify him as a career offender. In a 1998 decision, the 11th Circuit rejected that argument.
As it turned out, Gilbert had it right and the court got it wrong.
A decade later, the 11th Circuit reversed itself, ruling in another case that carrying a concealed weapon cannot be used to qualify someone to be a career offender. Gilbert challenged his designation again, saying that his sentence should be reduced by eight and a half years.
But the 11th Circuit, in an 8-3 opinion written by Judge Ed Carnes, rejected him again.
"A federal prisoner's right to have errors in the calculation of his sentence corrected is not without limits," Carnes wrote, saying such rights are narrowly limited by "the finality of judgment neighborhood of law."
Carnes also noted that when Gilbert was arrested, he was exercising "a drug dealer's version of ‘Bring Your Daughter to Work Day,'" because police found his 5-year-old daughter inside his car, as well as baggies of marijuana and crack and powder cocaine.
Senior Judge James Hill noted that Carnes spent a lot of time pointing out that Gilbert was not a nice man. "But neither, I expect, was Clarence Gideon, the burglar, or Ernesto Miranda, the rapist," Hill wrote, referring to defendants whose cases led to U.S. Supreme Court rulings establishing the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes and the requirement that police notify suspects of their rights before interrogating them.
"A judicial system that values finality over justice is morally bankrupt," he added.
Judge Bill Pryor, writing in agreement with Carnes, called dissents written by Hill, Rosemary Barkett and Beverly Martin "overwrought" and filled with "silly" arguments. "There is nothing unjust about federal courts not granting relief when the law does not provide a right of relief," he added.
Barkett countered that Gilbert was denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge the illegality of his detention, which means he will serve more than eight years longer than he should.
"In short, there is nothing silly -- and everything solemn -- about this case," she wrote.
About the Author
Bill Rankin has been an AJC reporter for more than 30 years. His father, Jim Rankin, worked as an editor for the newspaper for 26 years, retiring in 1986. Bill has primarily covered the state’s court system, doing all he can do to keep the scales of justice on an even keel. Since 2015, he has been the host of the newspaper’s Breakdown podcast.
