Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 325.0

529US1

Unit: $U40

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

250

GARNER v. JONES

Opinion of the Court

mission. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37, 42 (1990) (cit-
ing Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U. S. 167, 169–170 (1925)). Retroac-
tive changes in laws governing parole of prisoners, in some
instances, may be violative of this precept. See Lynce v.
Mathis, 519 U. S. 433, 445–446 (1997) (citing Weaver v. Gra-
ham, 450 U. S. 24, 32 (1981)); Morales, 514 U. S., at 508–509.
Whether retroactive application of a particular change in pa-
role law respects the prohibition on ex post facto legislation
is often a question of particular difﬁculty when the discretion
vested in a parole board is taken into account.

Our recent decision in Morales is an appropriate beginning
point. There a California statute changed the frequency of
reconsideration for parole from every year to up to every
three years for prisoners convicted of more than one homi-
cide.
Id., at 503. We found no ex post facto violation, em-
phasizing that not every retroactive procedural change
creating a risk of affecting an inmate’s terms or conditions
of conﬁnement is prohibited.
Id., at 508–509. The question
is “a matter of ‘degree.’ ”
Id., at 509 (quoting Beazell, supra,
at 171). The controlling inquiry, we determined, was
whether retroactive application of the change in Califor-
nia law created “a sufﬁcient risk of increasing the measure
of punishment attached to the covered crimes.” 514 U. S.,
at 509.

The amended California law did not violate this standard.
It did not modify the statutory punishment imposed for any
particular offenses. Nor did the amendment alter the stand-
ards for determining either the initial date for parole eligibil-
ity or an inmate’s suitability for parole.
Id., at 507. The
amendment did not change the basic structure of California’s
parole law.
It vested the California parole board with dis-
cretion to decrease the frequency with which it reconsidered
parole for a limited class, consisting of prisoners convicted
of more than one homicide.
If the board
determined a low likelihood of release existed for a member
within that class, it could set the prisoner’s next consider-

Id., at 507, 510.