Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 322.0

529US1

Unit: $U40

[10-04-01 09:23:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 244 (2000)

247

Opinion of the Court

I

In 1974 respondent Robert L. Jones began serving a life
sentence after his conviction for murder in the State of Geor-
gia. He escaped from prison some ﬁve years later and, after
being a fugitive for over two years, committed another mur-
der. He was apprehended, convicted, and in 1982 sentenced
to a second life term.

Under Georgia law, at all times relevant here, the State’s
Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board or Parole Board)
has been required to consider inmates serving life sentences
for parole after seven years. Ga. Code Ann. § 42–9–45(b)
(1982). The issue in this case concerns the interval between
proceedings to reconsider those inmates for parole after its
initial denial. At the time respondent committed his second
offense, the Board’s Rules required reconsiderations to take
place every three years. Ga. Rules & Regs., Rule 475–3–
In 1985, after respondent had begun serving
.05(2) (1979).
his second life sentence, the Parole Board, acting under its
authority to “set forth . . . the times at which periodic recon-
sideration [for parole] shall take place,” Ga. Code Ann. § 42–
9–45(a) (1982), amended its Rules to provide that “[r]econsid-
eration of those inmates serving life sentences who have
been denied parole shall take place at least every eight
years,” Ga. Rules & Regs., Rule 475–3–.05(2) (1985).

The Parole Board considered respondent for parole in
1989, seven years after the 1982 conviction.
It denied re-
lease and, consistent with the 1985 amendment to Rule 475–
3–.05(2), reconsideration was set for 1997, eight years later.
In 1991, however, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit held that retroactive application of the
amended Rule violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Akins v.
In
Snow, 922 F. 2d 1558, cert. denied, 501 U. S. 1260 (1991).
compliance with that decision, in effect reinstating its earlier
3-year Rule, the Parole Board reconsidered respondent’s
case in 1992 and in 1995. Both times parole was denied, the
Board citing for its action respondent’s “multiple offenses”