Opinion ID: 3015194
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Individual Disadvantage

Text: Richardson argues that, under Mickens-Thomas, the retroactive application of the 1996 Amendments is a per se violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and that he should 4 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is, of course, the final arbiter of Pennsylvania law. Nevertheless, it may be the case that the practical effect of a law or policy differs from the judicial interpretation. See Mickens-Thomas, 321 F.3d at 384. In such a case, we leave open the possibility that an ex post facto violation can be found if the Parole Board continues to apply a more stringent standard for parole determinations, notwithstanding the admonitions of the state’s highest court. In this respect, if we were presented with evidence that a stricter standard of review continues to prevail, Cimaszewski may not have been necessary to our finding that Mickens-Thomas retains vitality post-Winklespecht. 14 automatically be entitled to relief if he can demonstrate that the Parole Board relied on the amended version of the Parole Act. This argument, however, is in tension with the second prong of the ex post facto analysis: the requirement that the change in the law “disadvantage the offender affected by it.” Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. at 29; see also Garner, 529 U.S. at 255 (requiring a prisoner to show that “as applied to his own sentence the law created a significant risk of increasing his punishment”) (emphasis added). While the “general operation of the . . . parole system may produce relevant evidence and inform further analysis,” Garner, 529 U.S. at 255, the ultimate question is the effect of the change in parole standards on the individual’s risk of increased punishment. Mickens-Thomas is fully in accord with this approach. In Mickens-Thomas, we explicitly required Thomas to demonstrate not only that the new policy applied retroactively, but also that Thomas was disadvantaged as a result. See 321 F.3d at 384. We found that the key question is whether “the change affected the petitioner’s own sentence detrimentally.” Id. at 393 (emphasis original). Indeed, the second half of the Mickens-Thomas opinion is largely devoted to establishing that Thomas would have likely been paroled under the pre-1996 standards, but was denied parole only because of the new focus on public safety under the 1996 Amendments. As noted above, Thomas produced statistical evidence specific to his case, including the fact that out of 266 prisoners whose life sentence was commuted in the recorded history of the Parole Board, he was the sole individual whose parole was denied. Thomas also showed that the Parole Guidelines counseled in favor of parole, and that the Department of Corrections staff had unanimously recommended him for parole. In addition, Thomas pointed to the rationale given by the Parole Board for denying him parole, from which we inferred that the change in policy after the 1996 Amendments had a significant, if not determinative, effect on Thomas’s denial of parole. See 321 F.3d at 390-91. It is therefore clear that Mickens-Thomas did not establish a per se rule, but rather, in line with the Supreme Court precedents of Weaver, Garner, and Morales, required Thomas to show he was individually disadvantaged by the 1996 Amendments. The District Court denied Richardson’s habeas petition 15 because he failed to demonstrate that the 1996 amendments negatively affected his parole determination. The Court concluded “there is no language in the Board’s decision implicating the amendments . . . and Richardson has not demonstrated the role which those amendments played in the Board’s decision.” The District Court overstated the case by finding that there is “no language” in the Parole Board’s decision that implicates the 1996 Amendments. It is plain from each of Richardson’s denials of parole between 1999 and 2003 that the Board did rely on the amended Parole Act in making its determination. In 1999 and 2000, the denial of parole mirrored the language of the 1996 Amendments, and justified Richardson’s parole denial on the basis of “mandates to protect the safety of the public and to assist in the fair administration of justice.” In 2001, the denial took out the public safety language but stated that “the fair administration of justice cannot be achieved through your release on parole.” In 2002 and 2003, the parole decision specified that its denial was based on a consideration of “all matters required pursuant to the Parole Act of 1941, as amended, 61 P.S. § 331.1 et seq.” Nevertheless, it is not sufficient for a prisoner to show that the Board relied on a new law or policy. Rather, he must also adduce some evidence that this new law or policy disadvantaged him by creating “a significant risk of increasing his punishment.”5 Garner, 529 U.S. at 255. We acknowledge the intuitive force of the argument that adjudication under stricter standards is more likely to lead to an adverse result. And we recognize that it may be difficult for a prisoner to adduce evidence of disadvantage, particularly since, prior to 2001, the Parole Board did not need to give a detailed statement of reasons for denial of parole.6 But the 5 We note that Cimaszewski suggested that a prisoner must show that he or she “would have been released but for the 1996 amendment” and “bears the burden of pleading and proving that under the pre-1996 Parole Act, he would have been paroled, while under the 1996 amendment he has not been paroled.” 868 A.2d at 428 (emphasis added). This “but for” standard, however, has no basis in federal ex post facto law. 6 In 2001, however, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held in Voss, 788 A.2d 1107, that the generic rationale for denial 16 evidentiary requirement of the jurisprudence must be honored. For example, a petitioner might compare the parole rates for prisoners with similar convictions before and after the 1996 Amendments, state whether the Parole Guidelines would indicate that the petitioner was a good parole candidate, or draw inferences from the statement of reasons provided by the Parole Board regarding the criteria used for the parole determination in that individual’s case. Richardson has not provided any such evidence of disadvantage as a result of the 1996 Amendments. In this respect, Richardson’s case is distinguishable from Mickens-Thomas. We summarize our findings there: (1) We found that the Parole Board relied solely on public safety in denying Thomas parole, while disregarding the Parole Guidelines, the unanimous recommendations of the Department of Corrections, and the evidence of Thomas’s rehabilitation; (2) Thomas presented convincing evidence that he had a significant likelihood of parole under the pre-1996 guidelines, but was denied parole under the new policy; and (3) Thomas was able to show that all prisoners whose life sentences had been commuted prior to 1996 had been subsequently paroled. Mickens-Thomas may be an exceptional case because of the compelling nature of the evidence of prejudice. We do not require a petitioner to muster evidence of such convincing quality, particularly in the absence of an evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, our precedents require that a petitioner proffer at least some evidence of disadvantage to warrant habeas relief. Richardson was convicted of third degree murder and sentenced to 14 to 30 years. He has not provided any evidence of the rate of parole for similarly situated prisoners before and after the 1996 Amendments. He also has not shown, as Thomas did, whether the Parole Guidelines, which were developed prior to 1996, would have recommended parole. Indeed, Richardson was first denied parole on December 12, 1996, before the effective date of the 1996 Amendments, and the Board cited the assaultive nature of Richardson’s offense, the injury to the victim, the use of a of a prisoner’s parole application, “the Fair Administration of Justice cannot be achieved through your release on parole,” did not meet due process requirements as a matter of Pennsylvania law. 17 weapon, and Richardson’s need for counseling and treatment as reasons for the denial. Similar reasons appear in the post-1996 denials. In 2002, the reasons given for denying Richardson parole were the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney, reports, evaluations and assessments of his physical, mental, and behavior condition and history, and his prior criminal record. In 2003, the Parole Board added Richardson’s refusal to accept responsibility for the offense committed to the list of reasons for denial. While public safety appears to have been one factor in the denial of Richardson’s parole, it is hard to infer from these general statements the degree to which the 1996 Amendments impacted Richardson’s parole determination. Richardson claims that, at the very least, the District Court should be required to hold an evidentiary hearing to allow him to develop the record on whether the 1996 Amendments prejudiced his case. We agree with the District Court, however, that Richardson has thus far provided no evidence, and for that matter, has proffered no allegations, that a “significant risk” of increased punishment was created by the application of the 1996 Amendments to his individual case. We will not order an evidentiary hearing without allegations that state a claim for habeas relief. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963) (“[T]he federal court to which the application is made has the power to receive evidence and try the facts anew” whenever “an applicant for a writ of habeas corpus alleges facts which, if proved, would entitle him to relief”); Procunier v. Atchley, 400 U.S. 446, 452 (1971) (requiring a District Court “to make the threshold determination that the respondent would be entitled to relief if his allegations were believed” before granting an evidentiary hearing); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Because Richardson has failed to make any showing (or proffer) that he was individually disadvantaged by the retroactive application of the 1996 Amendments, we conclude that he has not established an ex post facto violation. We will therefore affirm the order of the District Court denying Richardson’s petition for habeas corpus. 18