California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Morales
514 U.S. 499 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that retroactively alters parole procedures does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause so long as it does not create a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment for a crime. A merely speculative and attenuated risk of increasing a prisoner's term of confinement is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.
Facts:
- In 1971, Jose Ramon Morales was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his girlfriend, Gina Wallace.
- After his release to a halfway house in April 1980, Morales married 75-year-old Lois Washabaugh.
- In July 1980, Washabaugh disappeared; her severed hand was later found, and Morales was discovered in possession of her car, purse, and credit cards.
- Morales pleaded nolo contendere to the second-degree murder of Washabaugh and was sentenced to a term of 15 years to life.
- At the time of the 1980 murder, California law entitled Morales, once eligible, to a parole suitability hearing every year.
- In 1981, the California Legislature amended the law, authorizing the parole board to defer subsequent hearings for up to three years for inmates convicted of more than one murder if the board found it was not reasonable to expect parole would be granted in the interim.
Procedural Posture:
- After being found unsuitable for parole at his initial 1989 hearing, the California Board of Prison Terms applied the 1981 amendment to defer Jose Ramon Morales's next hearing until 1992.
- Morales filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, arguing the 1981 amendment was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
- The District Court denied Morales's petition.
- Morales, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the California Department of Corrections as appellee.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the amendment violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The California Department of Corrections petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that retroactively decreases the frequency of parole suitability hearings for a specific class of inmates violate the Ex Post Facto Clause by increasing the punishment for their crimes?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No, the law does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. A retroactive change to parole procedures does not constitute an increase in punishment unless it creates more than a speculative or attenuated risk of prolonging incarceration. The Court reasoned that the 1981 amendment did not change the definition of Morales's crime, the length of his sentence, or the substantive standards for parole suitability. Unlike prior cases that invalidated laws directly increasing sentencing ranges or reducing good-time credits, this amendment was a procedural change aimed at administrative efficiency. The risk of increasing punishment is merely speculative because it applies only to a class of prisoners (multiple murderers) with a remote chance of parole, requires a specific finding by the Board that parole is not reasonably expected, and does not preclude the possibility of an expedited hearing if an inmate's circumstances drastically change. Therefore, the law does not alter the 'quantum of punishment' but merely 'alters the method to be followed' in determining a release date.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Eliminating a prisoner's statutory right to an annual parole hearing constricts the opportunity for early release, which constitutes an impermissible increase in punishment. The dissent argued that any law that retroactively deprives a prisoner of an opportunity to shorten their sentence is an ex post facto violation, regardless of how likely that opportunity was to succeed. The right to an annual hearing is a significant procedural safeguard and opportunity. The majority's reliance on the risk being 'speculative' is misplaced; the amendment offers no benefit to the inmate and will inevitably delay parole in some cases. Furthermore, targeting a narrow and unpopular class like multiple murderers should invite heightened judicial scrutiny for vindictive legislation, not reduced scrutiny.
Analysis:
This decision refines the Ex Post Facto analysis by distinguishing between substantive changes to punishment and procedural adjustments. It shifts the inquiry from whether a retroactive law creates any 'disadvantage' to whether it creates a 'sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment.' This holding grants states more leeway to amend parole and sentencing procedures retroactively for administrative purposes, provided the changes do not substantially alter the 'quantum of punishment.' Future challenges to similar procedural laws must now demonstrate a concrete, non-speculative risk of prolonged confinement, making such challenges more difficult to sustain.
Unlock the full brief for California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Morales