Document: 497 U.S. 37 110 S.Ct. 2715 111 L.Ed.2d 30 James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Petitionerv.Carroll F. YOUNGBLOOD. No. 89-742. Argued March 19, 1990. Decided June 21, Syllabus Respondent was convicted in a state court aggravated sexual abuse and sentenced to life imprisonment $10,000 fine. After his conviction sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, he applied for writ habeas corpus court, arguing that law did not authorize both fine prison term offense, thus judgment void entitled new trial. The bound by State Court Appeals' decision, recommended the be granted. Before considered Appeals, however, statute passed allowing an appellate reform improper verdict assessing punishment authorized law. Thus, Appeals reformed ordering deleted denied request Arguing law's retroactive application violated Ex Post Facto Clause Art. 1, § 10 Federal Constitution, respondent sought District Court, which denied. reversed. Relying statement Thompson v. Utah, 170 343, 18 620, 42 L.Ed. 1061, procedural statutes violate unless they "leave untouched all substantial protections with existing surrounds . accused," held respondent's right trial under former "substantial protection." Held: 1. Although rule Teague Lane, 489 288, 109 1060, 103 334—which prohibits rules cases collateral review—is grounded important considerations federal-state relations, it is jurisdictional sense this despite limited grant certiorari, must raise decide issue sua sponte. Since has chosen rely Teague, merits claim will considered. Pp. 40-41 2. prohibited Clause. 41-52. (a) definition ex post facto as one (1) punishes crime act previously committed, innocent when done, (2) makes more burdensome crime, after its commission, or (3) deprives charged any defense available according at time Beazell Ohio, 269 167, 46 68, 70 216, faithful Court's best knowledge original understanding Clause: Legislatures may retroactively alter crimes increase criminal acts. concedes Texas' does fall within categories, since change However, errs decisions have Clause's scope those but stated broadly legislation contravenes if accused protection" guaranteed such protection. When described "procedural" changes do even though work accused's disadvantage, see, e.g., Beazell, supra, 171, S.Ct., 69, logical presume refers procedures case adjudicated opposed substantive discussion Duncan Missouri, 152 377, 382-383, 14 570, 571-572, 38 485, Malloy South Carolina, 237 180, 183, 35 507, 508, 59 905, imported confusion into interpretation should read mean legislature immunize from scrutiny simply labeling "procedural." It adopt without explanation undefined enlargement 41-46. (b) Kring 107 221, 2 443, 27 506, are inconsistent "ex law" Constitution adopted, reasoning followed decided, caused lower federal courts about scope. therefore overruled. 47-52. 882 F.2d 956 (Ca 5 1989), REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed concurring judgment, BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 52. Charles Palmer, Austin, Tex., petitioner. Jon R. Farrar, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 question presented whether statute, allowed reformation jury case, violates I, 10. We hold not. Carroll Youngblood abuse. imposed $10,000. He argued Code Procedure addition and, thus, decision Bogany State, 661 S.W.2d 957 (1983), void, trial.1 In April 1985, feeling Bogany, 3 exclusive power writs corpus, see Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., 11.07 (Vernon 1977 Supp.1990), designed modify became effective. Article 37.10(b), 11, allows assesses 37.10(b) Supp.1990); parte Johnson, 697 605 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Youngblood's deletion 4 then United States Eastern Texas, Constitution. concluded "punishment increased (but actually decreased), elements offense ultimate facts necessary establish guilt changed," there no violation. App. Pet. Cert. C-6. Lynaugh, (CA5 1989). relied 1061 (1898), " 'leave person crime,' 959 (quoting U.S., 352, 623). protection," ordered issued. granted certiorari. 493 1001, 560, 555 (1989). 6 Because before us review, we faced threshold relief would constitute "new rule," apply our 334 (1989), Butler McKellar, 494 407, 1212, 108 347 (1990). Generally speaking, "[r]etroactivity properly treated question, for, once defendant announcing rule, evenhanded justice requires who similarly situated." 300, 1070. address retroactivity petition certiorari briefs merits, asked oral argument, counsel answered had Teague. Tr. Oral Arg. 4-5. think "jurisdictional" Cf. Patsy Board Regents Fla., 457 496, 515, n. 102 2557, 2567, 73 172 (1982) (Eleventh Amendment need raised decided own motion). consider claim, proceed so. 7 Latin phrase facto" literally encompasses "after fact," long been recognized constitutional prohibition laws applies only penal disadvantage offender affected them. Calder Bull, Dall. 386, 390-392, 648 (1798) (opinion Chase, J.); id., 396 Paterson, 400 Iredell, J.). See Miller Florida, 482 423, 430, 2446, 2451, 96 351 (1987).2 As early opinions explained, art established meaning framing Calder, Dall., 391 Chase's now familiar expounded legislative Acts view implicated core concern 8 "1st. Every action done passing law, criminal; action. 2d. aggravates greater than was, committed. 3d. punishment, inflicts annexed 4th. alters legal evidence, receives less, different, testimony, required commission offence, order convict offender." Id., 390 (emphasis original). 9 Early portrayed laws. Fletcher Peck, Cranch 87, 138, 162 (1810); Cummings Wall. 277, 325-326, 356 (1867); (Miller, dissenting) ("This exposition nature never denied, nor commentator added classes here set forth, coming clause"); Gut 35, 38, 19 573 (1870). So well accepted these principles 216 (1925), able confidently summarize follows: "It settled, so known their citation dispensed with, done; facto." 169-170, 68-69. 11 also Dobbert 432 282, 292, 97 2290, 2297, 53 344 (1977).3 12 formulation Several Constitutions employed term, appear basis Framers' provision. Federalist 44, 301 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) Madison); M. Farrand, Records Convention 1787, 376 (1911); 391-392 396-397 Maryland North example, declared "retrospective laws, punishing committed existence them criminal, oppressive, unjust, incompatible liberty; wherefore ought made." Maryland, Declaration Rights, XV (1776); XXIV (1776). Other Constitutions, using facto," included similar articles. Rights Fundamental Rules Delaware Form Government Commonwealth Massachusetts, (1780). 13 Another historical reference, Blackstone's Commentaries, discussed Framers during debates Clause, pp. 448-449 (1911), deemed authoritative source technical J.), buttresses understanding. According Blackstone, "when (indifferent itself) legislator first declares upon it." W. Commentaries *46. punishments mentioned explicitly sources, questioned prohibition, apparently theory "[t]he enhancement penalty, seems come same mischief creation penalty." 397 definition, then, use adopted. categories him. verdicts. abuse, convicted, eligible result conviction. Nevertheless, maintains finite 10, crime. argues him 15 which, accused, 292-293, 6, 2297-2298 6; 69; Mallett 181 589, 597, 21 730, 733, 45 1015 (1901). While define what word "procedural," adjudicated, crimes. correctly notes, said violation "affect[s] matters substance," depriving crime," 485 (1894), arbitrarily infringing personal rights." 905 (1915); 69. 16 language cited origin rather amorphous phrase, protections," appears lie 19th-century treatise Professor Thomas Cooley. T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations *272. notably assumed construction correct, *265, "may prescribe altogether different modes procedure discretion, cannot lawfully, think, doing, dispense crime." 17 This subsequently adopted phraseology: "[A]n imposes punishable committed; additional prescribed; evidence less testimony sufficient required; or, short, relation offence consequences, situation party disadvantage; prescribing abolition ones, leaving inhibition. Cooley Const.Lim. (5th ed.) 329." 382-383 (other citations omitted) added). Later, regard changes, "intended secure rights against arbitrary oppressive action." 508. repeated recognition itself, while emphasizing provision "not limit control remedies affect substance." 20 way make out say thereby Gibson Mississippi, 565, 590, 904, 910, 40 1075 (1896). Subtle violations permissible overt ones. addressed "whatever form," acts punishment. 170, But evaded defined categories. Duncan, 382, 571; Malloy, 183-184, references protections" "personal rights" Two respondent, fit analytical framework. 506 (1883), "it supposed [Calder Bull ] undertook define, exclusion, applicable." 228, 449. inter alia, 'in disadvantage.' 228-229, 449 Hall, 26 F.Cas. 84, 86 (No. 15,285) (D.Pa.1809)) deleted). And Utah reducing size juries persons deprived "a involved liberty" 623. 22 Neither decisions, view, consistent Nor 1898. These exemplified case. Murphy Kentucky, 465 1072, 1073, 104 1427, 1428, 79 751 (1984) (WHITE, dissenting denial certiorari) (noting "the evident among concerning procedure"); Kowal, 596 F.Supp. 375, 377 (Conn.1984) (Supreme jurisprudence applying "is piece"); L. Tribe, American Law 638 (2d 1988) (procedural upheld "can hardly distinguished functional invalidated"). 23 earlier capital lengthy history. first-degree murder, pursuant plea agreement, pleaded guilty second-degree murder. prosecutor 25 years prison. appealed ground agreement provided years. Supreme reversed remanded further proceedings. refused withdraw murder renew insisting instead acceptance constituted acquittal charge. over Kring's objection, directed general entered, retrial, death. 24 At Missouri defendant's served charge made plea, abrogated rule. free, matter retry 25-year vacated. because effected procedure. vote 4. support list falling Miller's quoted given Washington sitting Court: '[A]n operation, performed; increases Kring, 449-450 86) Applying test, benefit implied previous provided, "altered disadvantage," void. 235-236, 454-455. departure Calder's unjustified. Hall heavily other thereafter, expansive vessel owner sued forfeiture embargo bond obliging deliver certain cargo Portland, Me. excuse, severe storm disabled forced land Puerto Rico, where Rican government sell cargo. dicta, hypothesized that, effect forfeited cargo, "unavoidable accident" affirmative failing His instruction explained subsequent imposing requirement defense—that lost sea unavoidable accident—would deprive actions sold invalid 28 analysis A abolishes justification excuse expands done. appears, therefore, Washington's reference "relat[ing] consequences," shorthand altering increasing retrospective encompassed "alte[r] disadvantage." Nothing supports broad Kring. 29 possible reconcile numerous saying take away "defense" old carries quite linked alterations offense" amount commission." related based regulating pleas. changed might conduct underlying charge; respecting lesser offense. holding can justified thought include merely "alters reading departs understood adoption supported later cases. accordingly overrule second viewed context. initially grand larceny stealing calf—in 1895, Territory. tried convicted. granted, meantime admitted Union State. noncapital consist persons, 12, retried panel 8. 31 reasoned Territory, Sixth territorial 12-person jury. 349-350, 622. acquire admission provide, respect felonies limits otherwise States." 350-351, 622-623. "deprive[d] "materially alter[ed] Thompson's 352-353, 623-624. 32 foreshadowed Louisiana, 145, 88 1444, 491 (1968), believed Patton States, 281 276, 288-289, 50 253, 254-255, 74 854 (1930)—was incorporated applicable Fourteenth States. Territory obligated provide Amendment, prevented taking longer interpreted. obviously "substantial" one, anything crimes, defenses, punishments, To extent rested it.4 33 verdicts punish commission; Its 34 Reversed. whom MARSHALL join, judgment. 36 "Ex Constitution1 construed embrace afforded alleged offenses harsh penalties, protect wrongful postconviction remedy erroneous sentence—by conforming affording issues—effected deprivation I agree conclusion believe entirely precedents. * maximum 17, 1982. Under jury's task impose determine innocence. By consequence faulty instruction, improperly following year, somewhat reviewing authority correct sentence. Instead, entire "void" trial.2 Understandably, Legislature corrective order, difficult understand why error sentencing necessitate Theoretically, remedied either two ways. alternatively, eliminating option plainly beyond penalty option, subject defect; criminalize used created conform Such 39 argument contrary procedural, substantive, right. misreads precedents overlooks critical importance evaluating II rejected changes. amendment thereafter change.3 reversal demonstrates some fact complete imposition death penalty. wrote: 41 "Whatever essential change, defendant, involves difference between death, character denied." 224, 445. "In conclusive innocence higher grade namely, judicial homicide, received all, received, weight behalf offender. whereas stood homicide degree, could punished enacts punished, notwithstanding conviction." 43 jury, State's jurors required. belonging committed," 44 "We demand liberty taken except joint unanimous twelve persons. concurrent eight jurors, recognize not, time, legislation, review determined particular belongs class operation [26 84,] Wash.C.C. 366; 228 [2 449, 506]; Medley, Petitioner, 134 160, 171 [10 384, 387, 835.] Of course, materially impairs committed." 47 clear sufficiently drastic impact characterized degree. preclude codefendants jointly summarized construing explained: 48 "The rest notion whatever form, purport event, aggravate quality attributable act, altered enactment, fact, accused." 49 "And operate deny force manner prohibition. 221 444]; 343 [18 620.] settled statutory mode unsubstantial prohibited." Ibid. "Just moment transgress embraced formula proposition. distinction intended 183 [35 508,] III foregoing mere exclude coverage equally focus "right [the defendant] Thompson, 351, neither fair protected unauthorized excessive impaired slightest 51 follows immediately observation sensible precedent: protection likely substantial, affects valid imposed. claims satisfy test. change—which plea—made easier obtain much reduction who, verdict, likewise 52 (1901), is, distinguishable fails meet Mallett, obtained defendant. relying vacated intermediate court. Carolina reinstated conviction, claimed lacked appealing adverse restriction removed, contended enacted came conceded Mallett's theory, combination intervening—and, purposes, erroneous—appellate access processes. Not surprisingly, claim. comparable Mallett. relevant determination procedures. Finally, argue avenue correcting errors vitiated validity For contend—and how plausibly contend—that opportunity challenge somehow infected deliberations propriety imprisonment. claims, unrelated bar concededly predicates solely appellate—or, precisely postconviction—remedies.4 Unlike defendants wishes procedures, regulated open capped limitations resulted sentence.5 54 Obviously, itself clear, become meets low discussed. does, insubstantial Whatever else factors rights, imagine could, standpoint date implicate expand flexibility processes Indeed, barely attempted articulate abolished. possibility capricious unlikely windfall sort reasonably judged perspective 55 Accordingly, concur opinion. inception aside. give debate accuracy Satterlee Matthewson, 380, 381, 458 (1829) (note consistently adhered expressed Justices Iredell statutes. omits Chase 390, (1798), "legal evidence." Hopt 574, 202, 210, 262 (1884) (approving "leaving degree proof conviction"). prohibit evidentiary trials 386-387, 922, 924-925, 204 (1898) (rejecting making admissible handwritten documents handwriting exemplars); Hopt, 588-590, 209-210 (upholding felons competent testify). obsolete. Williams 399 78, 90 1893, 446 (1970). provides part: "No shall enter Treaty, Alliance, Confederation; Letters Marque Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills Credit; Thing gold silver Coin Tender Payment Debts; pass Bill Attainder, Law, impairing Obligation Contracts, Title Nobility." proposition, rendered inception. See, McIver, 586 851, (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Ocker 477 290 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). until doubt unlawful. Adams 642 211, 213-214 (Tex.App.1982) (reforming sentence); 646 663, 664-665 (Tex.App.) (stating reformed), rev'd, (Tex.Crim.App.1983); 960 (McCormick, (contending supplementary law). purposes opinion, assume limitation remedial powers St. Louis Appeals. Mo. 612, 631 (1881). passage (and disavowed) 223-224, 445-446, (1883): 'Formerly (State Ross, 32) indictment charging aside, again introduced sect. art. 1875 On something put provision, having whilst constitution force. There nothing this; procedure, facto. 35; Wall., 326.' intervening incorrect court; process appeal; saving removing supplement. fortiori comparison exclusion secondary trial, although court's contrast, respects identical.

Category: 0