This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-considers-how-to-fix-a-sentencing-error-of-its-own-making/2016/03/23/6d90c32c-f085-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Appeals court considers how to fix a sentencing error of its own making | Appeals court considers how to fix a sentencing error of its own making |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A federal appeals court on Wednesday wrestled with the question of how many times inmates can appeal their prison terms, particularly when a severe sentence was based on a legal mistake. | A federal appeals court on Wednesday wrestled with the question of how many times inmates can appeal their prison terms, particularly when a severe sentence was based on a legal mistake. |
| The case before a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit created unusual allies: The sentencing judge, defense lawyers and government prosecutors all agree that Raymond Surratt Jr.’s mandatory life sentence was unjust. | |
| The question for the 15 appeals judges was whether they have the power to do anything to fix it. | The question for the 15 appeals judges was whether they have the power to do anything to fix it. |
| Courts throughout the country often revise past convictions and sentencing errors. Until the Surratt case, no federal appellate court has considered whether it has a way to correct a mistake of its own making when the error is as severe as a mandatory life sentence. | Courts throughout the country often revise past convictions and sentencing errors. Until the Surratt case, no federal appellate court has considered whether it has a way to correct a mistake of its own making when the error is as severe as a mandatory life sentence. |
| If Surratt were resentenced today, he would face a mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years in prison, likely making him eligible for immediate release. The North Carolina father of two is being held at a federal facility in western Virginia for a 2005 cocaine conviction. | If Surratt were resentenced today, he would face a mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years in prison, likely making him eligible for immediate release. The North Carolina father of two is being held at a federal facility in western Virginia for a 2005 cocaine conviction. |
| Inside the dark wood-paneled courtroom Wednesday, the judges seemed to be struggling to find a way to limit any decision to the circumstances in Surratt’s case. | Inside the dark wood-paneled courtroom Wednesday, the judges seemed to be struggling to find a way to limit any decision to the circumstances in Surratt’s case. |
| Defense lawyer Ann Hester said the court should consider the “special concerns about fairness” when it comes to a mandatory life sentence that was erroneously imposed. | |
| Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said he too is sympathetic to Surratt but has deep concerns about consequences for the court if inmates are allowed to repeatedly challenge their prison terms any time the sentencing rules change. | |
| “I’ve never seen something as open ended as this. We’re going to be swamped, literally swamped,” Wilkinson said, adding “I’m concerned about hard cases making bad law.” | “I’ve never seen something as open ended as this. We’re going to be swamped, literally swamped,” Wilkinson said, adding “I’m concerned about hard cases making bad law.” |
| With the Justice Department and the federal public defenders in the same camp supporting Surratt’s position, the appeals court appointed Georgetown University law professor Steven H. Goldblatt to argue the other side. The three-judge panel that initially heard the case ended up agreeing with him in July. | |
| Goldblatt told the court Wednesday that Congress intentionally crafted only the narrowest of circumstances, such as “actual innocence,” for federal inmates to challenge their detention. | Goldblatt told the court Wednesday that Congress intentionally crafted only the narrowest of circumstances, such as “actual innocence,” for federal inmates to challenge their detention. |
| “Congress dictates what powers the courts have,” Goldblatt said. | “Congress dictates what powers the courts have,” Goldblatt said. |
| Surratt pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiring to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine in western North Carolina. He was 31 and one of 19 members of a large drug ring. Surratt had been caught three other times on lesser cocaine-related charges. | Surratt pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiring to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine in western North Carolina. He was 31 and one of 19 members of a large drug ring. Surratt had been caught three other times on lesser cocaine-related charges. |
| Although sentencing guidelines recommended a maximum penalty of about 20 years, the judge in the 2005 case said he had no choice but to impose a mandatory life sentence because of Surratt’s earlier drug convictions. He called the penalty “undeserved and unjust.” | Although sentencing guidelines recommended a maximum penalty of about 20 years, the judge in the 2005 case said he had no choice but to impose a mandatory life sentence because of Surratt’s earlier drug convictions. He called the penalty “undeserved and unjust.” |
| The conviction and sentence were upheld after Surratt’s initial appeals. | The conviction and sentence were upheld after Surratt’s initial appeals. |
| In 2011, judges for the 4th Circuit, which includes North Carolina, issued a decision that overruled past practice. The ruling corrected the court’s understanding of how defendants’ previous state-level convictions in North Carolina should be factored into a judge’s calculations for determining the length of prison terms. | In 2011, judges for the 4th Circuit, which includes North Carolina, issued a decision that overruled past practice. The ruling corrected the court’s understanding of how defendants’ previous state-level convictions in North Carolina should be factored into a judge’s calculations for determining the length of prison terms. |
| For Surratt, the new interpretation meant that his prior convictions should not have triggered a mandatory life term. | For Surratt, the new interpretation meant that his prior convictions should not have triggered a mandatory life term. |
| Several judges, including Barbara Milano Keenan and Pamela A. Harris, appeared interested in an interpretation that allows the court to address fundamental errors such as the life sentence in Surratt’s case in which the judge had no discretion. | Several judges, including Barbara Milano Keenan and Pamela A. Harris, appeared interested in an interpretation that allows the court to address fundamental errors such as the life sentence in Surratt’s case in which the judge had no discretion. |
| At least two of their colleagues — Paul V. Niemeyer and Dennis W. Shedd — pressed Surratt’s lawyer and the government’s attorney on the limits of such an exception. | At least two of their colleagues — Paul V. Niemeyer and Dennis W. Shedd — pressed Surratt’s lawyer and the government’s attorney on the limits of such an exception. |
| “Will the rule change with the next harsh case?” Shedd asked Michael R. Dreeben, a top deputy in the U.S. solicitor general’s office. | “Will the rule change with the next harsh case?” Shedd asked Michael R. Dreeben, a top deputy in the U.S. solicitor general’s office. |
| “No,” said Dreeben, who assured him he was speaking for the government, before adding, “I think we all know I can’t speak for the future.” |