Document: 514 U.S. 499115 S.Ct. 1597131 L.Ed.2d 588 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners,v.Jose Ramon MORALES. No. 93-1462. Supreme Court of the United States April 25, 1995. Syllabus * Respondent was sentenced to 15 years life for 1980 murder his wife and became eligible parole in 1990. As required by California law, Board Prison Terms (Board) held a hearing 1989, at which time it found respondent unsuitable numerous reasons, including fact that he had committed crime while on an earlier murder. would have been entitled subsequent suitability hearings annually under law place when murdered wife. The amended 1981, however, allow defer up three prisoner convicted more than one offense involving taking life, if finds is not reasonable expect be granted during intervening states bases finding. Pursuant this amendment, scheduled respondent's next 1992. He then filed federal habeas corpus petition, asserting as applied him, 1981 amendment constituted ex post facto barred Constitution. District denied but Appeals reversed, holding retrospective made less accessible thus effectively increased sentence violation Ex Post Facto Clause. Held: amendment's application prisoners who their crimes before enacted does violate Pp. __. (a) did increase "punishment" attached crime. It left untouched indeterminate substantive formula securing any reductions sentencing range. By introducing possibility hold another year or two after initial hearing, simply alters method followed fixing release date identical standards. Lindsey v. Washington, 301 397, 57 797, 81 L.Ed. 1182, Miller Florida, 482 423, 107 2446, 96 351, Weaver Graham, 450 24, 101 960, 67 17, distinguished. (b) Under expansive view, Clause forbid legislative change has conceivable risk affecting prisoner's punishment. In contrast, long question what adjustments are sufficient moment transgress constitutional prohibition must matter degree, declined articulate single "formula" making determination. There no need do so here, either, since creates only most speculative attenuated increasing measure punishment covered crimes, such conjectural effects insufficient threshold might established applies those taken class whom likelihood quite remote. addition, affects timing hearings, makes specific findings first hearing. Moreover, authority tailor frequency hearings. offers support speculation experience unanticipated sufficiently monumental alter parole, precluded from receiving expedited Nor there reason think postponing extend actual confinement period. Since often comes least several finding, could consider "suitable" setting date. 16 F.3d 1001 (CA 9 1994), reversed. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, SOUTER, James Ching, Sacramento, CA, petitioners. R. Asperger, appointed Los Angeles, respondent. djQ Justice THOMAS Court. 1 State its procedures decrease certain circumstances. This case presents whether violates We conclude not. 2 twice Jose Morales 1971, body girlfriend, Gina Wallace, abandoned medical building. She shot head, neck, abdomen; her right thumb amputated face slashed repeatedly. A bloody fingerprint near matched respondent's. jury guilty first-degree murder, prison. 3 While serving Training Facility Soledad, California, met Lois Washabaugh, 75-year-old woman begun visiting inmates gaining interest prison reform. Ms. Washabaugh visited occasions, kept contact with through correspondence. Respondent's letters eventually expressed romantic were married some halfway house 1980. 4 On July 4, 1980, home told friends she moving Angeles live new husband. Three days later, police officers human hand Hollywood Freeway Angeles. reported missing end July, identification revealed hers. Her never recovered. subsequently arrested possession Washabaugh's car, purse, credit cards, diamond rings. 5 pleaded nolo contendere second-degree Washabaugh. term beginning see Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 3041 (West 1982), (the Board) determine parole. set unless "the public safety requires lengthy period incarceration individual." 3041(b). heinous, atrocious, cruel nature offense; mutilation murder; record violence assaultive behavior; commission second first. Supplemental App. Pet. Cert. 45. 6 annual basis. 1977 Cal. Stats., ch. 165, 46. Legislature authorized "more involves life" "finds following finding." 3041.5(b)(2) 1982).1 light considerations led find based conclusion longer observation projected, determined suitable 1990 1991. 7 petition Central being custody Federal See 28 U.S.C. 2254. argued Article I, 10, Ninth Circuit (1994).2 Because "a cannot paroled without having hearing," concluded "any [prisoner's] clause." Id., 1004. accordingly constitutionally constrained provide effect 1006. 8 certiorari, 512 ----, 115 40, 129 935 (1994), we now reverse. II Constitution forbids passing "ex Law." Collins Youngblood, 497 37, 41, 110 2715, 2718, 111 30 (1990), reaffirmed incorporated art meaning framing Constitution." accordance original understanding, aimed laws "retroactively definition criminal acts." 43, S.Ct., 2719 (citing Calder Bull, (Dall.) 386, 391-392, 648 (1798) (opinion Chase, J.); Beazell Ohio, 269 167, 169-170, 46 68, 68-69, 70 216 (1925)). 10 legislation issue here Instead, us 3041.5 increases arguing does, relies chiefly trilogy cases legislature may stiffen "standard punishment" applicable already committed. 401, 799, 1182 (1937); 351 (1987); 17 (1981). 11 Lindsey, proposition "forbids punitive consummated." U.S., 799. petitioners grand larceny, provision they provided maximum "not fifteen years." 398, 797. called judges impose whatever selected, exceed years. 400, 797-98, Before sentenced, statute passed judge 15-year maximum; statute, secure grace board. 398-399, 797-98. violated because prescribed later severe earlier." 12 enhancing altering used calculate Weaver, petitioner Both imposed, state statutes mandatory terms all complied regulations laws. challenged invalidated retroactively reduced amount "gain time" credits available formula. Though preserved win back these convinced officials exercise discretion especially deserving, 34, n. 18, 967, eliminated lower possible range terms. 26-27, 31-33, 962-963, 965-967. contained similar defect. Florida scheme "presumptive ranges" various offenses, follow absence "clear convincing reasons" departure. At crime, presumptive 31/2 41/2 sentencing, altered establishing sexual offenses "primary points" assigned crimes. result, petitioner's jumped 51/2 resulting "quantum 433-434, 2453.3 13 insists indistinguishable Miller, contends control one. disagree. punished "confinement life." 190 1982). also unchanged Thus, although formal "minimum" confinement, able one-third "credit" reduction minimum complying rules regulations. ibid.; 2931. standards "eligibility" re Jackson, 39 Cal.3d 464, 476, Cal.Rptr. 760, 767, 703 P.2d 100, 108 (1985), determining "suitability" date, §§ 3041, 14 change: introduced very year, that, probability deemed interim 3041.5(b)(2). contrast (which purpose terms, supra, 2452-2453), evident focus merely " 'to relieve [Board] costly time-consuming responsibility scheduling hearings' chance released. Cal.3d, 473, Cal.Rptr., 765, P.2d, 106 (quoting history). Rather changing "alters followed" 433, 2453 (contrasting adjustment appropriate sentence"); Dobbert 432 282, 293-294, 97 2290, 2298, 53 344 (1977) "altered methods employed death penalty imposed"). III nonetheless urges "no principled way how significant enhanced tolerated." Brief 39. Our accepted view Clause, will endorse here. approach require invalidate number minor (and perhaps inevitable) mechanical changes produce remote impact expected confinement. approach, judiciary charged micromanagement endless array procedures, innocuous membership Terms, restrictions hours use library, duration allotted defendant's allocution judge, page limitations objections presentence reports documents seeking pardon governor. These countless other create speculative, difficult him make persuasive early release, alone purposes.4 Indeed, contrary advocated respondent, "will prohibition" "degree." Beazell, 171, 69. evaluating constitutionality produces crimes.5 previously identifying punishments fall within prohibition, id., 69, occasion producing prohibited establish Dobbert, 294, 2299 (refusing accept "speculation" effective statutory onerous" old one).6 18 First, enabled between 1982).7 noted about 90% 85% 764, 105. numbers, "was seen means released.' Ibid. 19 Second, Board's carefully tailored end. hearing; Accordingly, concluded, "it "This arbitrary decision," Morris Castro, 166 Cal.App.3d 33, 38, 212 299, 302 (1985); conduct full review" relevant facts, ibid., entirely clear point, reliability determination administrative appeal. Tit. 15, Cal.Code Regulations, 2050 (1994). 20 retains particular circumstances individual prisoner. default requirement depending mass murderer participated repeated violent both 3-year delay poses lesser threat "public safety," 3041(b), receive 2-year delay. particularized broad given Board, narrow reasonably prospects opportunity hear ings. For prisoners, allows avoid futility going motions reannouncing denial yearly 21 suggests nevertheless render them fails, multiple murderers subject Even assume change, moreover, current provides basis concluding experiences drastic Board. suggested hypothesized advance 475, 766, 107, Department Corrections indicates brief "practice" "review merit communication inmate asking Reply Petitioner 3, 1. If decision postpone appeal, controlling seem preserve belated (1994) (time limits appeals "are directory extended"). An Board—either own volition pursuant order entered appeal—would remove harm even hypothetical 22 postponement According immediate finding largely "theoretica[l]," 474, 106; many cases, suitability. To extent representative, follows 'practical effect' significant." 106-107. bound information dates" eye toward "uniform gravity magnitude respect public." 3041(a) standards, prior certainly "relevant" expedite show well reflects fact. Such ultimate unaffected IV 23 Given circumstances, Circuit's judgment 24 ordered. 25 SOUTER joins, dissenting. 26 Despite previous conviction despite serious character offense, plea trial imposed imprisonment 27 1989 each thereafter. statute. permitted years, yet and, requisite findings, deferred Legislature's elimination thereby answering question, I begin propositions understand dispute. Those compel general population, replacing every nowhere disputing conclusion, majority holds small subset namely murderers, ante, __, special depriving my neither features save otherwise plainly invalid 29 "[n]o shall . pass Art. 10. Framers viewed fundamental protections against oppressive government.1 example, Madison principles social compact principle sound legislation." Federalist 44, p. 282 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Similarly, Hamilton counted among described "greater securities liberty republicanism [the Constitution] contains." 84, 511 Although text self-explanatory, basic coverage understood 1798, Dall. 390, 648, identified four categories laws.2 today implicates third category, consists "[e]very punishment, inflicts greater annexed committed." (emphasis original). consistently condemned falling category. (1925), Stone "is settled, decisions known citation dispensed with, burdensome commission, facto." 68. Stone's few ago: "The formulation faithful our best knowledge understanding Clause: Legislatures 2719, (1990). 31 importance placed always enforced retroactive enhancement scrupulously. Any authorizes past invalid. examined conditions favorable unfavorable prisoner, see, e.g., Rooney North Dakota, 196 319, 325, 264, 265, 49 494 (1905); Medley, 134 160, ,S.Ct. 384, 33 835 (1890), Member ever voted uphold length remain imprisoned (1987) (unanimous opinion); (1981) (without dissent). 32 jurisprudence concerning important propositions. squarely prove authorizing actually affected serve. (1937), years; gave sentence. contended failed received law. unanimously rejected State's contention: "[T]he clause looks standard rather imposed. Removal freed further tutelage revocable will, operates detriment sense adopted onerous old." 34 Only ago, (1987), noting "Lindsey establishes 'that challen ging penal code grounds old.' 432, 2452 (citation omitted). stated succinctly 966, "[t]he inquiry provision, mitigate 35 impermissible result govern release. addressed availability good-time credits. notion removal constitute explaining eligibility factor entering into bargain judge's calculation imposed." 32, citing Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 557, 94 2963, 2975, 41 (1974); Warden Marrero, 417 653, 658, 2532, 2535, 383 (1974). Greenfield Scafati, 277 F.Supp. 644, 645 (Mass.1967) (three-judge court) ("The good deductions considered essential element sentence"), summarily aff'd, 390 713, 88 1409, 250 (1968). 36 Finally, occurs deprives person take advantage provisions emphasized "petitioner disadvantaged shorten conduct." 33-34, 967. statement consistent "[i]t substantial disadvantage deprived give freedom expiration term." 401-402, 644 court), (1968) (affirming three-judge court accumulate gain-time six months revocation whose occurred statute's enactment). 37 settled perfectly simple changed statutorily mandated constrict inmate's earn surprise nearly held. See, (CA9 1994); Roller Cavanaugh, 984 F.2d 120 (CA4 1993), cert. dism'd, 510 114 593, 126 409 (1993); Akins Snow, 922 1558 (CA11), denied, 501 1260, 2915, 1079 (1991); Rodriguez Parole Commission, 594 170 (CA7 1979); Reynolds, 138 N.H. 519, 642 A.2d 1368 (1994); Griffin State, 433 S.E.2d 862 (S.C.1993), 513 924, 127 217 Tiller Klincar, Ill.2d 1, 149 Ill.Dec. 206, 561 N.E.2d 576 498 1031, 688, 112 679 (1991).3 38 case, course, therefore necessary eliminate problems. feature identifies "been convicted, same different proceedings, discrete principal concerns underlies legislation—the danger usurp judicial power legislate administer justice unfairly individuals. concern forefront jurisprudence. Harlan noted: policy rest apprehension legislature, imposing penalties conduct, acting prevent dangerous generally persons classes persons." States, 366 213, 247, 1052, 1070 246 (1961) (Harlan, concurring part part). Clauses protect "vindictive 429, 2451; 29, 964; Malloy South Carolina, 237 180, 183, 507, 508, 59 905 (1915). narrower burdened legislation, characteristics bill attainder.4 Cf. Plaut Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 1447, --- ---- (1995) (BREYER, judgment) (finding separation powers "application limited individuals"); (discussing dangers focused groups individuals). 40 believe core concern. individuals belies majority's acceptance focus," costs. Surely, today, fraction total hearings; eliminating unlikely savings. though gives credence budget-cutting rationale, much frank motivations, urge "reexamine" "[i]n national trend towards implementation harsher offenders inmates." Petitioners (footnote agree petitioners' implication better "get-tough-on-crime" legislation. currently popular designed cut recent years,5 comparable legislation.6 measures are, legitimate operate prospectively, prevalence surely justify careful review consequences conduct. 42 overreaching protects particularly acute target group unpopular (to put mildly) murderers. obviously little hay cultivating vote. therefore, animate demand enhanced, (as seems believe) reduced, scrutiny.7 43 requiring instructed either or, written reasons suggesting "activities participate benefit incarcerated." "shall thereafter." 44 contain sort dispensing procedure dealing exceptional warranting arise short, vests unreviewable dispense 45 constitutional. doubts regime substitutes requirements complies "automatically avoiding disciplinary infractions performing tasks." 35, 968. argued, whole caused ways gain time. argument, award extra purely discretionary, contingent wishes correctional authorities behavior inmate." reasoning behind skepticism case. true almost factfinding regime, occasionally mistakes hearings.8 prerequisite errors increased. Court's correcting erroneous persuading reinstate cancelled evidence bridge gap protection afforded unqualified agency hearings.9 47 Two final elements comment. favor "invalidate" "endless adjustments," plunging procedures. Ante, fear completely unfounded. differs matters forth critical way: absolute absolutely opportunity. refers obtain none deprivation constitutes parade horribles easily distinguishable us, justification diverging approach. 48 attempts circumvent characterizing "speculative." runs direction. present amendment: instead leaves mistaken prediction influenced curtailing workload. result. Unlike unlike approved (1977), (1905), contains off-setting benefits inmate. reducing ostensibly sole cutting costs, leave position in, inevitably grant cases. concludes, nevertheless, "speculative" say inmates' draw "speculates" accuracy predictions, elapses eventual deal unexpected engage pure condemning assertion me unpersuasive, perverse. 50 respectfully dissent. syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 287, 499. again alternative deferring five murders, 3041.5(b)(2)(C) Supp.1994), Cal.Stats., 1053, 1994 560. 5-year deferral applies, "only 1977, January 1991," appears During pendency action, appeared 1992 opinions enhancements "disadvantage" offenders. 799; 2452-53. But language unnecessary results inconsistent framework developed After Collins, ambiguous "disadvantage," nor, dissent suggest, "opportunity release," post, punishable. proposes line deprive "make release." Post, raises concerns, itself independent significance. Other mechanisms surrounding process should evaluated standard. Contrary dissent's suggestion, express "run[ ] direction," shifts burden persuasion claim. Not surprisingly, attempt undo rule claimant bear non-persuasion existence alleged violation. party claim carry showing scheme, challenging escape changed. eviscerate Collins. Just inhibition upon passage tried, respects, force committed," Gibson Mississippi, 162 565, 590, 904, 910, 1075 (1896), carried out legal prevailed. mischaracterizes analysis somehow concocted "reduced" scrutiny murderers." apply constant: punishments. necessarily considers factors—including, targets likely others parole—but "enhanced" nor societal animosity ibid. That included separate clauses prohibiting 9, cl. ("No Bill Attainder Law passed"); Attainder, Law, impairing Obligation Contracts"), highlights Framers' appraisal prohibition. "1st. Every action done innocent done, criminal; punishes action. 2d. aggravates was, 3d. 4th. evidence, receives less, different, testimony, offence, convict offender." cited parties, Bailey Gardebring, 940 1150 (CA8 1991); 100 undermine thesis. 2-1 decision, Minnesota However, member premised "laws"; concurred authored opinion. upheld speak situation text. "A attainder act trial. [L]egislative acts, form, named ascertainable members inflict bills Lovett, 328 303, 315, 66 1073, 1078-1079, 90 1252 (1946) (internal quotation marks prohibitions closely related. Fletcher Peck, Cranch 87, 138-139, (1810). occasions amendment. 1986 Cal.Stat., 248, 166; 1; 560, N.H.Laws, 254:13; Mich.Comp.Laws 791.234 (1992); Ill.Rev.Stat. ¶ 1003-3-5(f) S.C.Code 24-21-645 (Supp.1987). "multiple murderers" low 7, candidates reflected avenue properly construed, revising retroactively. skeptical deferrals determinations. litigation over compliance determinations 'virtually impossible' '[b]oth deny same.' 478, 768, 109. future remarkably similar. heavily questionable utility. somewhat ironic posits nonstatutory, extraordinary remedies cure motivated efficiency.

Category: 0