What a Relief? The Availability of Habeas Relief Under the Savings Clause of Section 2255 of the AEDPA

Posted: 13 Apr 2013

Date Written: 2012

Abstract

In Gilbert v. United States, a majority of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the savings clause contained in § 2255 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) does not authorize a federal prisoner to bring in a habeas petition a claim, which the AEDPA’s ban on second or successive motions would otherwise bar, that the sentencing guidelines were misapplied in a way that resulted in a longer sentence not exceeding the statutory maximum. The majority focused on finality interests and worried that allowing a prisoner to avoid the AEDPA’s ban on second or successive motions would lead to abuse and delay. Some, including the Gilbert dissenters, have expressed concerns that denying a prisoner relief where a subsequent, but retroactively applicable, change in the law renders that prisoner’s sentence incorrect or invalid could result in constitutional violations. This Article attempts to get past the rhetoric from both sides of the debate and proposes a middle-ground approach that would pacify both the administrative and constitutional concerns that have been raised.

Keywords: habeas, 2255, AEDPA, eleventh circuit, gilbert, sentencing, collateral relief, second or successive, eighth amendment, prisoner

Suggested Citation

Grubman, Scott, What a Relief? The Availability of Habeas Relief Under the Savings Clause of Section 2255 of the AEDPA (2012). South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249883

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
250
PlumX Metrics