Judges Seek to Reimpose Jail Sentence for Sheriff : Law: Appeal is based on concerns that early releases by Brad Gates negate courts’ authority to punish wrongdoers.

Municipal Court judges have asked an appellate court to reimpose a 30-day jail sentence against Sheriff Brad Gates for his early release of prisoners, arguing that the separation of powers is at stake.

In a brief filed last week with the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, lawyers for the judges said the “appeal goes to the heart of the judiciary’s powers and ability to punish violations of valid court orders and state law.”

A Municipal Court judge held Gates in contempt last year, but he never served his sentence because the order was overturned in Superior Court.

The appeal of that decision infuriated some county officials Tuesday.

“This is a total surprise to me,” said an angry Roger R. Stanton, chairman of the Board of Supervisors. “I see absolutely no merit to doing this at all. It’s like members of a family fighting with one another.”

The dispute stems from Gates’ policy of citing and giving early releases to hundreds of prisoners at the Orange County jails each week. Gates has said that there is no room for additional prisoners.

In May, 1991, Richard W. Stanford, presiding judge in the Municipal Court in Santa Ana, found Gates in contempt for 17 instances of “unlawful inmate releases” and ordered that the sheriff spend 30 days in jail.

But Superior Court Judge Eileen C. Moore overturned the contempt ruling last September, finding that Gates appeared to have done the best he could in running the jail under difficult circumstances.

Gates maintains that he has been forced to release prisoners early because of a standing federal order to cap the jail population. But in their appeal brief, the municipal judges countered that this order applies only to the Central Men’s Jail in Santa Ana and that beds were available at other jails.

The judges’ appeal also mentioned a “phenomenon of disrespect for the judicial system” in the case and argued that the independence of the Municipal Court must be maintained if it is to remain effective. Municipal Court judges are upset by Gates’ policy because it is most often the people that they sentence who are given early releases under the program.

Stanford said he recognizes that some county officials have criticized him for protracting the dispute.

But he said the Municipal Court judges have together decided to “pursue this appeal because it contains critical issues on the separation of powers that need to be resolved.”

But county officials were not mollified.

“When he talks about separation of powers,” Stanton said, “what’s more relevant here for the average citizen is the separation of taxpayers’ money because of a nonsense lawsuit. The money’s going down a hole, and that’s the only thing being separated.”

The county represents Gates in the case and is also paying private lawyers to represent the municipal judges. By the time the appeal is done, officials estimate that the private attorneys may get $50,000.

When told of the appeal Tuesday, Gates said he was “just very disappointed that we continue to deal with this issue in the courts.”