Opinion ID: 2283170
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ex Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution

Text: Appellant asserts that application of 18 Pa.C.S.A.  1311 to his case is an illegal ex post facto law under Article 1,  17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (No ex post facto law . . . shall be passed.) (As will be seen in this section, the ex post facto standards under our constitution are comparable to the standards under the United States Constitution and our interpretations have been consistent with those of the United States Supreme Court: therefore, references to decisions of the latter Court may be made interchangeably with our decisions). Appellant's theory is as follows: (1) when Commonwealth v. Moody, supra , was decided while his appeal was pending, he had a right to have his death penalty vacated and to receive a sentence of life imprisonment; (2) at the time of the Story I decision (January 26, 1978), he was subject to no greater punishment than life imprisonment because no constitutional death penalty was then in effect in Pennsylvania; (3) therefore, application of  1311 to his case results in an increase in his punishment from life imprisonment to death in violation of Art. 1,  17 as interpreted by Commonwealth ex rel. Wall v. Smith, 345 Pa. 512, 29 A.2d 912 (1942) (the only case offered by appellant in support of this contention). While this syllogism is not without a certain abstract, intellectual appeal, upon scrutiny it reveals itself to be pure sophistry, as a perusal of the ex post facto cases readily reveal. In 1913, this Court adopted the ex post facto standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court. Commonwealth v. Kalck, 239 Pa. 533, 87 A. 61 (1913). In Kalck, appellant was convicted on March 1, 1911 of murder of the second degree for a homicide occurring December 19, 1910. Subsequent to the conviction, but prior to her sentencing, the legislature adopted the then-controversial Indeterminate Sentencing Act. Act of June 19, 1911, P.L. 1055. It was there argued that imposing sentence under that Act for a crime committed prior thereto was an ex post facto law and, therefore, unconstitutional. This Court unanimously rejected that contention. The Court held, supra at 239 Pa. 538, 87 A. 61: The probation against the enactment of ex post facto laws in this country was first written into the Constitution of the United States and since that time has been incorporated into the organic law of every state. As far back as 1798, the Supreme Court of the United States in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 [1 L.Ed. 648], undertook to define the meaning of an ex post facto law, and that case has remained as a leading authority on the question to the present time. Under that decision ex post facto laws were grouped into four classes, as follows: (1) Every law that makes an act done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; (2) every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed; (3) every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime, when committed; (4) every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and requires less or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict. The appellant in Kalck had asserted that the Indeterminate Sentencing Act inflicted greater punishment on her than the law that had been annexed to her crime when committed. Since, under Act of 1911, the minimum sentence was indeterminate and was actually fixed by the court at 15 years, and since the prior act limited the minimum sentence to not more than five years, the appellant's minimum sentence was, in fact, greater than that which could have been imposed under the prior act. However, the Court noted that the determinative factor on the issue of whether greater punishment had been inflicted was the maximum sentence fixed by the legislature. Under both acts, that maximum remained set at 20 years pursuant to an entirely separate statute (the Act of April 14, 1893, P.L. 17) which had been in force both at the time of the crime and the time of the sentencing. Accordingly, the Court noted that the Indeterminate Sentencing Act undertook to regulate, not the law which fixed the punishments, but the sentencing of convicts, and the method of releasing them on parole . . . . The Act does not fix punishments; it relates exclusively to the manner of sentencing. Both acts expressly recognize as still in force the law fixing maximum punishments . . . . At the time of the passage of these acts the maximum punishment for murder of the second degree was twenty years, and this is still the law, and the indefinite term for which sentence is imposed under these acts must be within the maximum limit. This statutory punishment remains unchanged, but the court is given a discretion in the manner of imposing the sentence, and this was intended to work a substantial benefit to the convicted person as a reward for good conduct. . . . . A statute which mitigates the penalty is not objectionable on the ground of being an ex post facto law, although passed after the crime was committed. [citations omitted] So, too, statutes which relate to procedure or penal administration, or prison discipline, are not to be considered ex post facto, even though the effect may be to enhance the severity of the punishment. [citations omitted] Indeed, it may be stated as a general rule, that no one has a right to insist that particular remedies shall remain unchanged, or that courts and their jurisdiction and the proceedings in them shall continue unaltered, or that there shall be no departure from established methods in prison discipline or penal administration. Retrospective legislation relating to crimes and punishments may or may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground of being ex post facto. The question in each case is whether it will increase the punishment, or deprive a party of substantial rights to which he was entitled under the law as it stood at the time the offense was committed. If the situation is not altered or changed to the disadvantage of the complaining party, the law even if passed after the offense was committed, is not ex post facto as to him. Id. 239 Pa. at 540-43, 87 A. at 61 (emphasis added). Since the Act of 1911 did not fix punishments, but instead related exclusively to the manner of sentencing, id. 239 Pa. at 540, 87 A. 61, there was no ex post facto violation. See also Commonwealth ex rel. Wall v. Smith, supra ; Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 46 S.Ct. 68, 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925) (similar standards as in Kalck ) and Rooney v. North Dakota, 196 U.S. 319, 25 S.Ct. 264, 49 L.Ed. 494 (1905) (same). The United States Supreme Court has recently had occasion to decide the ex post facto issue in a case imposing the death penalty pursuant to sentencing procedures adopted after the murder had been committed. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). The petitioner there committed two grisly murders while a statute was in effect in Florida permitting the death penalty. Prior to arrest and trial, Furman v. Georgia, supra , was decided and, pursuant to that decision, the Supreme Court of Florida struck down its 1971 death penalty statute. Late in 1972, the Florida legislature enacted a new death penalty procedure; this statute was upheld in Proffit v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976). Petitioner Dobbert raised several issues concerning the validity of applying the new statute to him. His first argument was that he should have been sentenced under the procedure in effect at the time of his crimes which procedure he viewed as enuring to his benefit. The Court concluded that the changes in the law were procedural and on the whole ameliorative and that for either of these reasons, there was no ex post facto violation. Dobbert v. Florida, supra 432 U.S. at 292, 97 S.Ct. at 2297. The evil at which the ex post facto proscription aims is simply not present when the change is merely procedural or where the change was, on the whole, ameliorative (even if substantive). The evil is the potential for legislatures to direct arbitrary and oppressive legislation at individuals. Id. 432 U.S. at 293, 97 S.Ct. at 2298 citing Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180, 35 S.Ct. 507, 59 L.Ed. 905 (1915). In Dobbert the Court concluded, 432 U.S. at 293-94, 296-97, 97 S.Ct. at 2298-99, 2299-2300: In the case at hand, the change in the statute was clearly procedural. The new statute simply altered the methods employed in determining whether the death penalty was to be imposed; there was no change in the quantum of punishment attached to the crime. . . . . In this case, not only was the change in the law procedural, it was ameliorative. It is axiomatic that for a law to be ex post facto it must be more onerous than the prior law. . . . . [V]iewing the totality of the procedural changes wrought by the new statute, we conclude that the new statute did not work an onerous application of an ex post facto change in the law. Perhaps the ultimate proof of this fact is that this old statute was held to be violative of the United States Constitution in Donaldson v. Sack, 265 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1972), while the new law was upheld by this Court in Proffit, supra . Dobbert also argued an ex post facto violation based on the theory that at the time he committed his atrocities, there was no valid death penalty in effect in Florida since the statute in effect at that time was later declared to be unconstitutional. The court dismissed this contention. [T]his sophistic argument mocks the substance of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Whether or not the old statute would in the future, withstand constitutional attack, it clearly indicated Florida's view of the severity of murder and of the degree of punishment which the legislature wished to impose upon murderers. The statute was intended to provide maximum deterrence, and its existence on the statute books provided fair warning as to the degree of culpability which the State ascribed to the act of murder. Petitioner's highly technical argument is at odds with the statement of this Court in Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 374, 60 S.Ct. 317, 318, 84 L.Ed. 329 (1940): The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1125, 30 L.Ed. 178; Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566, 33 S.Ct. 581, 584, 57 L.Ed. 966. It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored.  Here the existence of the statute served as an  operative fact  to warn the petitioner of the penalty which Florida would seek to impose on him if he were convicted of first-degree murder. This was sufficient compliance with the ex post facto provision of the United States Constitution. Id. 432 U.S. at 297-99, 97 S.Ct. at 2300. Appellant in the instant case is in exactly the same position as was Dobbert. The lower court correctly held that the existence of the death penalty as punishment for first degree murder on July 3, 1974 was an operative fact fully advising and warning appellant of the severity of his crime and the intentions of the legislature. When appellant murdered Officer Wallace, our statutes permitted the death penalty for the offense. Appellant was at least constructively on notice that this penalty might indeed follow his brutal actions. The death penalty statute was intended to provide maximum deterrence, and its existence at the time of the crime provided fair warning as to the degree of culpability this Commonwealth ascribed to the act of killing a police officer in the performance of his duties. Dobbert, supra, at 297, 97 S.Ct. at 2300. Appellant was sentenced to death pursuant to the statute in effect at the time of his trial. The only effect of the former statute was to provide sufficient warning of the gravity this Commonwealth attached to first degree murder so as to make application of the new statute to him consistent with the ex post facto restraints of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. When appellant was granted a new trial, he quite properly was subjected to the punishment provided for by the statute then in effect, Dobbert, supra, 432 U.S. at 301, 97 S.Ct. at 2302, which was substantively no more harsh than the penalty prescribed for appellant's offense at the time of his crime and imposed at his first trial. Cf. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). As the death penalty was in effect at the time of the murder of Officer Wallace, as the changes of the new act were procedural, and as the changes were clearly on the whole ameliorative, there was no ex post facto violation in applying 18 Pa.C.S.A.  1311 to appellant following his conviction upon retrial. Furthermore, 18 Pa.C.S.A.  1102, sentence for murder, is the statute which fixes the punishment for murder of the first degree at death or life imprisonment. This provision was in effect at the time Story murdered Patrick Wallace, and was in effect at the time of his sentencing. [17] Thus, as Kalck made clear, the changes in sentencing procedure had no effect on the quantum of punishment which had been fixed by 18 Pa.C.S.A.  1102 at death or life imprisonment which was in effect at all times relevant to these proceedings. Appellant Story is even less affected by the modifications in sentencing procedure than was appellant Kalck: the latter had her minimum sentence actually increased from five to 15 years while the former was sentenced to receive the death penalty on both occasions. Moreover, in Dobbert, the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that equal protection of the laws was denied to petitioner therein by imposition of the death penalty in effect at the time of his trial. The Florida Supreme Court had resentenced to life imprisonment all prisoners under sentence of death pursuant to the death penalty statute which was in effect at the time petitioner committed the acts for which he was tried, but which had been declared unconstitutional before his trial. Since a new death penalty statute was in effect at the time of petitioner's trial, the United States Supreme Court declared, there was nothing irrational about Florida's decision to relegate petitioner to the class of defendants covered by the new statute. This reasoning applies with equal force to the instant case.