2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit 7-1-2009 

# P le aze v . K lem P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4652

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P le az e v . K le m" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1090. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1090H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 4652

____________ DA RREN PLEAZE, A ppel l ant v. S U P E R I N T E N D E N T E D W A R D K L E M; PENN SYLV AN I A B OA RD OF PROB ATI ON AN D PA RO LE; A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 00830) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2009 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI AM OND, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: J ul y1, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge .2

D a rre n P lea z e a p p e a ls th e o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt d e n y in g h is p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , arg u in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in re jec tin g h is c laim th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia B o a rd o f P ro b a tio n a n d P a ro le ( th e “ P a ro le B o a rd ” ) v io late d th e E x P o st F a c to C lau se o f th e U .S . C o n stitu tio n b ysu b jec tin g h im to the r equi r ement s of a s t atut e pas s ed more than a y earaft erhi s convi ct i on. W e di s agr ee a n d wi l l a f

f i rm. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etforth onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. Pl eaz e w as convi ct ed of r obberyi n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A l l egheny C ountyon M ar ch 29, 1999. H e i s curr ent l ys ervi ng a fi ve- and- a- hal f t o el even y ear s e n te n c e in th e s ta te p ri s o n s y s te m , w ith h is m a x im u m te rm e x p ir in g o n M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 . O n A pr i l 25, 2001, the Penns y l vani a D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) i s s ued a “Pr es cr i pt i ve Pr ogr am P l an” f orPl eaz e, r ecomm endi ng thathe part i ci pat e i n var i ous i ns t i tut i onal pr ogr ams, i ncl udi ng empl oym enttr ai ni ng, vocat i onal educa t i on, drug and al cohol educa t i on, angerm anage m ent , and a s exual offe nderor i ent at i on. Pl eaz e s ubs equent l ycompl et ed the r ecomm ended pr ogr ams, i ncl udi ng the s exual offe nder or i ent at i on.Forr eas ons uncl earfr om the r ecor d, Pl eaz e neve rcompl et ed thes e others exual 1 off end er pr og ram s. 3 P lea z e b e c a m e e lig ib le f o r p a ro le o n S e p tem b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 . S in c e th e n , the P a ro le B oar d has deni ed hi m par ol e on atl eas tfourocca s i ons . I tbas ed the deni al s on, i nt eral i a, Pl eaz e’ s negat i ve par ol e hea r i ng i nt ervi ew s and hi s fai l ur e t o compl et e addi t i onal insti tuti o n al pro g ram s (i n clud ing , in p arti cu lar, ad d it ion al sex u al of fe n d er p rog ram s). 1 A f terh is th ird d e n ial o f

p a ro le in S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 5 , P lea z e f iled a p e tit io n f

o r a w rit o f m an d am u s in the P en n sy lvan ia C o u rto f C o m m o n P leas, all eg ing that the P aro le B o ard r e tr o a c t i v e l ya p p l i e d c h a n g e s i n c r i t e r i a t o d e n yh i m pa r o l e a n d th e r e b yv i o l a t e d th e Ex PostFact o C l aus e. Speci fi cal l y , he ar gued thatthe Par ol e B oar d appl i ed t o hi m 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 9718. 1, w hi ch r equi r es pr i s oner s convi ct ed of the off ens es l i s t ed ther ei n, eac h of w hi ch i s a s exual offe ns e r el at i ng t o a mi nor , t o part i ci pat e i n a D O C “pr ogr am of c o u n s e lin g o r t h e ra p yd e s ig n e d f o r i n c a rc e ra te d s e x o f

f e n d e rs ” to b e e lig ib le f

o r p a ro le . T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas tr eat ed Pl eaz e’ s fi l i ng as a pet i t i on forr evi ew and di s m i s s ed it. W h ile P lea z e ’s s u b se q u e n t allo c a tu r p e tit io n to th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f P e n n sy lv a n ia wa s p e n d i n g , th e P a r o l e Bo a r d d e n i e d P l e a z e p a r o l e f o rth e f o u r th t i me , a n d th e S u p r e me C our tthen di s m i s s ed hi s pet i t i on. Pl eaz e fi l ed the pr es enthabea s pet i t i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , ar gui ng thatthe P a ro le B o a rd e rre d in a p p ly in g § 9 7 1 8 .1 to h im d u rin g h is p a ro le h e a rin g s in tw o w a y s: f irst, b e c a u se th e sta tu te w a s p a ss e d o n D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 , m o re th a n a y e a r a f terh is4

convi ct i on, i tw as i m pr oper l yappl i ed r etr oact i vel y ; and, s econd, Pl eaz e w as convi ct ed of rob b ery , w h ich is n o t on e o f th e e n u m era ted o ff en ses in the s tatu te. T h e D istri ct C o u rt h eld th at th e P aro le B o ard d id n o t app lythe s tatu te retr o ac ti v elyto P leaz e, th e B o ard ’s pr ocedur es di d noti ncr eas e hi s t erm of puni s hm ent , and Pl eaz e’ s fai l ur e t o compl et e the a d d itio n a l s e x u a l o f

f e n d e r p ro g ra m s w a s n o t th e s o le re a s o n f o r h is d e n ia l o f

p a ro le . Pl eaz e fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l . W e gr ant ed Pl eaz e’ s pet i t i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a l a b i l i tya s t o wh e th e rth e Di s tr i c tCo u r te rr e d i n r e j e c t i n g h i s e x p o s tf

a c t o c l a i m. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overPl eaz e’ s habea s pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Pl eaz e’ s habea s pet i t i on w ith o u t c o n d u c tin g a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g , w e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w . R i chards on v. P a . B d . o f P ro b . & P a ro le , 4 2 3 F .3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 7 n .3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Zet t l em oyerv. Fulcom er , 9 2 3 F . 2 d 2 8 4 , 2 9 1 & n . 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). III . T h e E x P o st F a c to C lau se sta tes th a t “[ n ]o sta te s h a ll . . . p a ss a n y. . . ex p o st f a c to law ,” U .S . C o n st. a rt. I, § 1 0 , cl. 1 , w h ich h a s b e e n d e f in e d to in c lu d e a n y“ c h a n g e [ th a t] a lters th e d e f

in iti o n o f c rim in a l co n d u c t o r in c re a se s th e p e n a ltyb yw h ich a c rim e is puni s habl e. ” C al . D ep’ tof C or r . v. Mor al es , 5 1 4 U .S . 4 9 9 , 5 0 6 n .3 (1 9 9 5 ). In o rd e r to m ai ntai n a clai m for hab eas r el i ef as a res ultof an ex p ostfact o v i olat i on , P l eaze m ust5

es t abl i s h tw o fac t or s , namel ythat“ther e w as a cha nge i n the l aw orpol i cyw hi ch has been gi ven r etr os pect i ve ef

fec t ” and thathe “w as di s advant aged bythe cha nge. ” R i chards on , 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 2 8 7 -8 8 ; see al so W eave rv. G r aham , 4 5 0 U .S . 2 4 , 2 9 (1 9 8 1 ); Mi ckensThom as v. V

aughn , 3 2 1 F .3 d 3 7 4 , 3 8 3 -8 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). P lea z e c o n ten d s th a t th e P a ro le B o a rd im p ro p e rlyd e n ied h im p a ro le in v io latio n o f th e E x P o st F a c to C lau se b e c a u se it appl i ed § 9718. 1 t o hi m , r es ul t i ng i n an ac tual r i s k of an i ncr eas e i n hi s s ent ence , and that th e D istric t C o u rt th e re f o re e rre d in d e n y in g h is h a b e a s p e tit io n b e c a u se h e m e t b o th fa ctors u n d er R i chards on . W e f ind thes e a rgu m en ts i n ap p o sit e b ec au se th e P aro le B o ard di d notappl y§ 9718. 1 i n deny i ng Pl eaz e par ol e, and ther efor e he c annotm eetei ther pr ong. A. Pl eaz e ar gues he has m etthe fi r s tr equi r ement , that“ther e w as a cha nge i n the l aw o r p o licyw h ich h a s b e e n g iv e n re tro sp e c tiv e e f f e c t,” b e c a u se , h e c o n ten d s, th e P a ro le B o ard ap p li ed § 9 7 1 8 . 1 to h im , w h ich w as im p rop er b ec au se th e statute w as e n ac ted m o re than a y earaft erhi s convi ct i on and al s o beca us e he w as nots ervi ng a s ent ence forone of the enumer at ed off

ens es i n the s t atut e. T he C om m onw eal th ar gues , i n contr as t , that m andat orypart i ci pat i on i n the s exual offe nderpr ogr ams under§ 9718. 1 di d notcr eat e a r etr oact i ve cha nge i n pol i cyand that , r egar dl es s , the Par ol e B oar d neverappl i ed the s t atut e’ s r equi r ementt o Pl eaz e. W e agr ee w i th the C om m onw eal th.6

Fi r s t , the D O C had the abi l i tyt o, and di d, denypar ol e t o s om e i nm at es w ho fai l ed to u n d e rg o s e x u a l o f

f e n d e r t re a tm e n t p ri o r t o th e p a s s a g e o f § 9 7 1 8 .1 . See , e. g. , Hi bb ard v . P a . B d . o

f P ro b . & P a ro le , 816 A . 2d 344, 346- 47 ( Pa. C om m w . C t . 2003) ( r ej ect i ng the peti t i on er’ s ar gu m ents that the ap pli cat i on of § 97 18 . 1 requir em ents res ult ed in an ex po st fact o ap pli cat i on of law based o n the Parole B oard de ny i ng the p et i t i on er par ole because he fa i l ed t o part i ci pat e i n a s exual offe nderpr ogr am). Fur ther , the Par ol e B oar d has w i de di s cr et i on t o m ake de ci s i ons r egar di ng par ol e bas ed on a va r i etyof fa ct or s . A l though the B oar d ci t ed Pl eaz e’ s fai l ur e t o compl et e addi t i onal s exual offe nderpr ogr ams as a fa ct or i n deny i ng hi m par ol e ( though i tneverr efe r ence d § 9718. 1) , Pl eaz e’ s s ucce s s ful co m p let ion o f a n ad v an ce d sex u al of fe n d er p rog ram w as o n e o f m an yfa ctors the B o ard c o u ld c o n s id e r i n e v a lu a tin g h is p a ro le a p p lic a tio n s . See R i chards on , 423 F. 3d at284 ( s t at i ng thatthe Penns y l vani a Par ol e A ctal l ow s the B oar d t o cons i der , i nt eral i a, “the pr i s oner ’ s compl et e cr i m i nal r ecor d, conductw hi l e i n pr i s on, ‘ phy s i cal , m ent al [, ] and b e h a v io r c o n d itio n a n d h is to ry,’ th e ‘n a tu re a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e o f f e n s e c o m m itte d ,’ a n d ‘th e g e n e ra l ch a ra c tera n d b a c k g ro u n d o f th e p riso n e r’” (q u o tin g 6 1 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 331. 19) ) . N othi ng i ndi cat es thatthe B oar d i nt ended t o r etr oact i vel yappl ythe r equi r ement s of § 9718. 1 t o Pl eaz e orthati tm ade i t s deci s i on r egar di ng hi s par ol e bas ed on i m pr opercons i der at i ons . T he B oar d nevercl ai m ed thatPl eaz e w as i nel i gi bl e for par ol e bybarr i ng hi m fr om appl y i ng orr efus i ng t o cons i derhi s appl i cat i on, w hi ch i s the r emedyforfai l ur e t o compl yw i th § 9718. 1.7

F in a lly, P le a z e a rg u e s th a t th e P a ro le B o a rd e rr e d in s u p p o s e d ly ap p lyin g § 9 7 1 8 .1 t o hi m beca us e he w as convi ct ed of r obbery , w hi ch i s notone of the off ens es i ncl uded w ith in th e sc o p e o f

th e sta tu te. T h e f

a c t th a t th e sta tu te c o v e rs s e x u a l o f f e n se s re latin g to m in o rs, a n d n o t a r o b b e ryc o n v ictio n , m e re lyu n d e rsc o re s o u r c o n c lu sio n th a t th e P a ro le Bo a r d d i d n o tr e tr o a c t i v e l ya p p l yth e s t a tu t e t o h i m. T h u s, ev en ab sen t § 9 7 1 8 . 1 , the P aro le B o ard w as f ree to rejec t Plea ze ’s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o rp a r o l e d u e t o h i s f

a i l u r e t o c o mp l e t e a r e c o mm e n d e d p r o g r a m, a n d we d i s a g r e e wi th P l e a z e th a tth e P a r o l e Bo a r d a p p l i e d th e s t a tu t e t o h i m. B. E v e n w e re w e to a ss u m e th a t th e P a ro le B o a rd d id a p p ly§ 9 7 1 8 .1 to P lea z e , h is arg u m en t st il l fail s b ec au se h e c an n o t m ee t th e se co n d fa ctor u n d er R i chards on , r equi r i ng hi m t o s how thathe “w as di s advant aged bythe cha nge” i n l aw . Pl eaz e ca rr i es “the u ltim a te b u rd e n o f

e s ta b lis h in g th a t th e m e a s u re o f p u n is h m e n t its e lf

h a s c h a n g e d ,” Mor al es , 514 U . S. at510 n. 6, and he “ m us ts how thatas appl i ed t o hi s ow n s ent ence the l aw cr eat ed a s i gni fi cantr i s k of i ncr eas i ng hi s puni s hm ent . ” G ar nerv. Jones , 52 9 U. S. 2 4 4 , 2 5 5 (20 0 0 ). P lea z e a rg u e s th a t alth o u g h th e P a ro le B o a rd d id n o t ex p licitlyc ite § 9 7 1 8 .1 , it c lea rlya p p lied it i n d e n y in g h im p a ro le, a n d th a t it s re tro a c tiv e a p p lica tio n d ire c tly r es ul t ed i n hi s i ncr eas ed puni s hm entbeca us e “butforthe s t atut e . . . , he w oul d nothave been r equi r ed t o t ake as ex off enderpr ogr am. ” B ut“a ‘ s pecul at i ve and a t t enuat ed8

p o ss ib ili tyo f

. . . inc re a sin g th e m e a su re o f p u n ish m e n t’ is n o t en o u g h ” o f a sh o w in g to m e e t P le a z e ’s b u rd e n . R i chards on , 423 F. 3d at288 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Mor al es , 514 U . S. at509) . Forexampl e, i n Mi cke ns - Thom as , w e g ra n ted h a b e a s re lief to a p riso n e r w h o p re se n ted e v id e n c e in d ica tin g th a t h e h a d a sig n if ica n t li k e lih o o d o f

p a ro le underan ol d pol i cybutw as deni ed i tundera new l aw , and thatthe Par ol e B oar d had p a ro le d a ll o th e r s im ila rl ys itu a te d in m a te s p ri o r t o th e c h a n g e in la w . 3 2 1 F .3 d a t 3 8 7 . H ow ever , unl i ke the pr i s oneri n Mi cke ns - Thom as , Pl eaz e has notdemonstr at ed thatbut fo r § 9 7 1 8 . 1 h e w o u ld h av e b ee n p aro led, or tha t othe r si m il arlysitu ated p ri so n ers w ere p a ro le d p ri o r t o th e p a s s a g e o f th e s ta tu te . See a l

so R i chards on , 423 F. 3d at291- 94. I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng P l eaze’s pet i t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus.