Tyree v. Moran
113 Ariz. 275, 550 P.2d 1076, 1976 Ariz. LEXIS 283 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that is remedial in nature and alters post-sentencing procedures, rather than changing the penalty or sentence itself, is not considered impermissibly retroactive and can be applied to individuals sentenced before the statute's enactment.
Facts:
- Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than seven years.
- His sentence commenced on September 14, 1971.
- In 1974, the Arizona legislature amended statute A.R.S. § 31-411.
- The amendment mandated that every prisoner be temporarily released under the control of the department of corrections 180 days prior to the expiration of their maximum sentence, as calculated with time credits.
- The effective date of this amendment was August 9, 1974, which was after the Petitioner had already been sentenced and was serving his time.
- Petitioner argued that based on his earned time credits and the new law, he was eligible for immediate release into this supervised period.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court of Arizona.
- The petition contended that the respondents, representing the state, were wrongfully detaining him in the Arizona State Prison.
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 the 1974 amendment to A.R.S. § 31-411, mandating a 180-day period of supervised temporary release prior to the expiration of a maximum sentence, apply to prisoners who were sentenced before the amendment's effective date?
Opinions:
Majority - Holohan, Justice
Yes, the 1974 amendment applies to prisoners sentenced before its effective date. The court reasoned that the amendment is remedial in nature, not punitive. It does not alter the penalty for any offense, create a new penalty, or change the sentence imposed. Instead, its objective was to reform the release process by providing a period of supervision for all prisoners upon release, addressing a situation where inmates could be released without any oversight. The court held that statutes that are remedial and relate to procedural changes do not fall under the general rule against retroactive application, even if they relate to antecedent events. Therefore, the legislative intent was for the new supervised release rule to be effective for all prisoners, regardless of their sentencing date.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between impermissibly retroactive punitive laws and permissible remedial or procedural laws in the context of criminal sentencing. It establishes that legislative reforms to post-incarceration supervision can be applied to the existing prison population without violating legal principles against retroactivity. This provides legislatures with greater flexibility to implement systemic changes, such as mandatory supervision, to enhance public safety and improve prisoner reentry. The case reinforces the principle that a law is not retroactive merely because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation.
