california
dept
corrections
morales
argued
january
decided
april
respondent
sentenced
years
life
murder
wife
became
eligible
parole
required
california
law
board
prison
terms
board
held
hearing
time
found
respondent
unsuitable
parole
numerous
reasons
including
fact
committed
crime
parole
earlier
murder
respondent
entitled
subsequent
suitability
hearings
annually
law
place
murdered
wife
law
amended
however
allow
board
defer
subsequent
hearings
three
years
prisoner
convicted
one
offense
involving
taking
life
board
finds
reasonable
expect
parole
granted
hearing
intervening
years
bases
finding
pursuant
amendment
board
scheduled
respondent
next
hearing
filed
federal
habeas
corpus
petition
asserting
applied
amendment
constituted
ex
post
facto
law
barred
constitution
district
denied
petition
appeals
reversed
holding
retrospective
law
made
parole
hearing
less
accessible
respondent
thus
effectively
increased
sentence
violation
ex
post
facto
clause
held
amendment
application
prisoners
committed
crimes
enacted
violate
ex
post
facto
clause
pp
amendment
increase
punishment
attached
respondent
crime
left
untouched
indeterminate
sentence
substantive
formula
securing
reductions
page
ii
sentencing
range
introducing
possibility
board
hold
another
parole
hearing
year
two
initial
hearing
amendment
simply
alters
method
followed
fixing
parole
release
date
identical
substantive
standards
lindsey
washington
miller
florida
weaver
graham
distinguished
pp
respondent
expansive
view
clause
forbid
legislative
change
conceivable
risk
affecting
prisoner
punishment
contrast
long
held
question
legislative
adjustments
sufficient
moment
transgress
constitutional
prohibition
must
matter
degree
declined
articulate
single
formula
making
determination
need
either
since
amendment
creates
speculative
attenuated
possibility
increasing
measure
punishment
covered
crimes
conjectural
effects
insufficient
threshold
might
established
clause
amendment
applies
taken
one
life
class
prisoners
likelihood
release
parole
quite
remote
addition
affects
timing
subsequent
hearings
board
makes
specific
findings
first
hearing
moreover
board
authority
tailor
frequency
subsequent
hearings
respondent
offers
support
speculation
prisoners
might
experience
unanticipated
change
sufficiently
monumental
alter
suitability
parole
prisoners
might
precluded
receiving
subsequent
expedited
hearing
reason
think
postponing
expedited
hearing
extend
prisoner
actual
confinement
period
since
parole
release
date
often
comes
least
several
years
suitability
finding
board
consider
prisoner
became
suitable
parole
setting
actual
release
date
pp
thomas
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
ginsburg
breyer
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
souter
joined
california
dept
corrections
morales
justice
thomas
delivered
opinion
state
california
amended
parole
procedures
allow
board
prison
terms
decrease
frequency
parole
suitability
hearings
certain
circumstances
case
presents
question
whether
application
amendment
prisoners
committed
crimes
enacted
violates
ex
post
facto
clause
conclude
california
twice
convicted
respondent
jose
ramon
morales
murder
body
respondent
girlfriend
gina
wallace
found
abandoned
medical
building
shot
head
neck
abdomen
right
thumb
amputated
face
slashed
repeatedly
bloody
fingerprint
near
body
matched
respondent
jury
found
respondent
guilty
murder
sentenced
life
prison
serving
sentence
state
training
facility
soledad
california
respondent
met
lois
washabaugh
woman
begun
visiting
inmates
gaining
interest
prison
reform
washabaugh
visited
respondent
numerous
california
dept
corrections
morales
occasions
respondent
kept
contact
correspondence
respondent
letters
eventually
expressed
romantic
interest
washabaugh
two
married
time
respondent
release
halfway
house
april
july
washabaugh
left
home
told
friends
moving
los
angeles
live
new
husband
three
days
later
police
officers
found
human
hand
hollywood
freeway
los
angeles
washabaugh
reported
missing
end
july
fingerprint
identification
revealed
hand
body
never
recovered
respondent
subsequently
arrested
found
possession
washabaugh
car
purse
credit
cards
diamond
rings
respondent
pleaded
nolo
contendere
murder
washabaugh
sentenced
term
years
life
became
eligible
parole
beginning
required
california
law
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
board
prison
terms
board
held
hearing
july
determine
respondent
suitability
parole
california
law
required
board
set
release
date
respondent
unless
found
public
safety
requires
lengthy
period
incarceration
individual
board
found
respondent
unsuitable
parole
numerous
reasons
including
heinous
atrocious
cruel
nature
offense
mutilation
washabaugh
murder
respondent
record
violence
assaultive
behavior
respondent
commission
second
murder
parole
first
supplemental
app
pet
cert
law
place
time
respondent
murdered
washabaugh
respondent
entitled
subsequent
suitability
hearings
annual
basis
cal
ch
however
california
dept
corrections
morales
california
legislature
authorized
board
defer
subsequent
suitability
hearings
three
years
prisoner
convicted
one
offense
involves
taking
life
board
finds
reasonable
expect
parole
granted
hearing
following
years
bases
finding
cal
penal
code
ann
west
light
considerations
led
find
respondent
unsuitable
parole
based
conclusion
longer
period
observation
required
parole
release
date
projected
board
determined
reasonable
expect
respondent
found
suitable
parole
pursuant
amendment
board
scheduled
next
hearing
respondent
filed
federal
habeas
corpus
petition
district
central
district
california
asserting
held
custody
violation
federal
constitution
see
respondent
argued
applied
amendment
constituted
ex
post
facto
law
barred
article
constitution
district
denied
respondent
habeas
petition
appeals
ninth
circuit
reversed
california
dept
corrections
morales
prisoner
paroled
without
first
parole
hearing
appeals
concluded
retrospective
law
making
parole
hearings
less
accessible
effectively
increase
prisoner
sentence
violate
ex
post
facto
clause
appeals
accordingly
held
board
constitutionally
constrained
provide
respondent
annual
parole
suitability
hearings
required
law
effect
committed
crime
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
article
constitution
forbids
passing
ex
post
facto
law
collins
youngblood
reaffirmed
ex
post
facto
clause
incorporated
term
art
established
meaning
time
framing
constitution
accordance
original
understanding
held
clause
aimed
laws
retroactively
alter
definition
crimes
increase
punishment
criminal
acts
citing
calder
bull
dall
opinion
chase
beazell
ohio
legislation
issue
effects
change
definition
respondent
crime
instead
question
us
whether
amendment
increases
punishment
attached
respondent
crime
arguing
respondent
relies
chiefly
california
dept
corrections
morales
trilogy
cases
holding
legislature
may
stiffen
standard
punishment
applicable
crimes
already
committed
see
lindsey
washington
miller
florida
weaver
graham
lindsey
established
proposition
constitution
forbids
application
new
punitive
measure
crime
already
consummated
petitioners
lindsey
convicted
grand
larceny
sentencing
provision
effect
time
committed
crimes
provided
maximum
sentence
fifteen
years
applicable
law
called
sentencing
judges
impose
indeterminate
sentence
whatever
maximum
selected
long
exceed
years
petitioners
sentenced
however
new
statute
passed
required
judge
sentence
petitioners
maximum
new
statute
petitioners
secure
earlier
release
grace
parole
board
held
application
statute
petitioners
violated
ex
post
facto
clause
measure
punishment
prescribed
later
statute
severe
earlier
weaver
miller
held
ex
post
facto
clause
forbids
enhancing
measure
punishment
altering
substantive
formula
used
calculate
applicable
sentencing
range
weaver
petitioner
sentenced
years
prison
crime
murder
time
crime
time
sentence
imposed
state
statutes
provided
formula
mandatory
reductions
terms
prisoners
complied
certain
prison
regulations
state
laws
statute
petitioner
challenged
invalidated
california
dept
corrections
morales
retroactively
reduced
amount
gain
time
credits
available
prisoners
formula
though
statute
preserved
possibility
prisoners
might
win
back
credits
convinced
prison
officials
exercise
discretion
find
especially
deserving
see
found
effectively
eliminated
lower
end
possible
range
prison
terms
statute
issue
miller
contained
similar
defect
florida
sentencing
scheme
established
presumptive
sentencing
ranges
various
offenses
sentencing
judges
required
follow
absence
clear
convincing
reasons
departure
time
petitioner
miller
committed
crime
presumptive
sentencing
range
years
sentencing
however
state
legislature
altered
formula
establishing
presumptive
sentencing
range
certain
sexual
offenses
increasing
primary
offense
points
assigned
crimes
result
petitioner
presumptive
range
jumped
years
held
resulting
increase
quantum
punishment
violated
ex
post
facto
clause
california
dept
corrections
morales
respondent
insists
california
amendment
us
indistinguishable
legislation
issue
lindsey
weaver
miller
contends
cases
control
one
disagree
amendment
california
punished
offense
murder
indeterminate
sentence
confinement
state
prison
term
years
life
cal
penal
code
ann
west
amendment
also
left
unchanged
substantive
formula
securing
reductions
sentencing
range
thus
although
years
formal
minimum
term
confinement
respondent
able
secure
credit
reduction
minimum
complying
prison
rules
regulations
see
ibid
amendment
effect
standards
fixing
prisoner
initial
date
eligibility
parole
see
jackson
cal
determining
suitability
parole
setting
release
date
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
amendment
made
one
change
introduced
possibility
initial
parole
hearing
board
hold
another
hearing
next
year
year
found
reasonable
probability
respondent
deemed
suitable
parole
interim
period
contrast
laws
issue
lindsey
weaver
miller
purpose
effect
enhancing
range
available
prison
terms
see
miller
supra
evident
focus
california
amendment
merely
relieve
board
costly
responsibility
scheduling
parole
hearings
prisoners
reasonable
chance
released
jackson
cal
quoting
legislative
history
rather
changing
sentencing
range
applicable
covered
california
dept
corrections
morales
crimes
amendment
simply
alters
method
followed
fixing
parole
release
date
identical
substantive
standards
see
miller
supra
contrasting
adjustment
presumptive
sentencing
range
change
method
followed
determining
appropriate
sentence
see
also
dobbert
florida
contrasting
change
quantum
punishment
statute
merely
altered
methods
employed
determining
whether
death
penalty
imposed
iii
respondent
approach
require
invalidate
number
minor
perhaps
inevitable
mechanical
changes
might
produce
remote
risk
impact
prisoner
expected
term
confinement
respondent
approach
judiciary
charged
ex
post
facto
clause
micromanagement
endless
array
legislative
adjustments
parole
sentencing
procedures
including
innocuous
adjustments
changes
membership
board
prison
terms
restrictions
hours
prisoners
may
use
prison
law
library
reductions
duration
parole
hearing
restrictions
time
allotted
convicted
defendant
right
allocution
sentencing
judge
page
limitations
defendant
objections
presentence
reports
documents
seeking
pardon
governor
countless
changes
might
california
dept
corrections
morales
create
speculative
attenuated
risk
affecting
prisoner
actual
term
confinement
making
difficult
make
persuasive
case
early
release
fact
alone
end
matter
ex
post
facto
purposes
indeed
contrary
approach
advocated
respondent
long
held
question
legislative
adjustments
held
sufficient
moment
transgress
constitutional
prohibition
must
matter
degree
beazell
evaluating
constitutionality
amendment
must
determine
whether
produces
sufficient
risk
increasing
measure
punishment
attached
covered
crimes
previously
declined
articulate
single
formula
identifying
legislative
changes
sufficient
effect
substantive
crimes
punishments
fall
within
thee
constitutional
prohibition
see
occasion
amendment
creates
speculative
attenuated
possibility
producing
prohibited
effect
increasing
measure
punishment
covered
crimes
conjectural
effects
insufficient
threshold
might
establish
ex
post
facto
clause
see
dobbert
california
dept
corrections
morales
refusing
accept
speculation
effective
punishment
new
statutory
scheme
onerous
old
one
first
amendment
applies
class
prisoners
likelihood
release
parole
quite
remote
amendment
enabled
board
extend
time
suitability
hearings
prisoners
convicted
one
offense
involves
taking
life
cal
penal
code
ann
west
california
dept
corrections
morales
california
noted
prisoners
found
unsuitable
parole
initial
hearing
found
unsuitable
second
subsequent
hearings
jackson
cal
light
numbers
amendment
seen
means
relieve
board
costly
responsibility
scheduling
parole
hearings
prisoners
chance
released
ibid
quoting
legislative
history
second
board
authority
amendment
carefully
tailored
end
amendment
effect
date
prisoner
initial
parole
suitability
hearing
affects
timing
subsequent
hearings
accordingly
amendment
effect
prisoner
unless
board
first
concluded
hearing
prisoner
unsuitable
parole
also
reasonable
expect
parole
granted
hearing
following
years
cal
penal
code
ann
west
arbitrary
decision
morris
castro
cal
app
cal
rptr
board
must
conduct
full
hearing
review
relevant
facts
state
bases
finding
cal
penal
code
ann
west
though
california
law
entirely
clear
point
reliability
board
determination
may
also
enhanced
possibility
administrative
appeal
see
tit
cal
code
regulations
moreover
board
retains
authority
tailor
frequency
subsequent
suitability
hearings
particular
circumstances
individual
prisoner
default
requirement
annual
hearing
board
california
dept
corrections
morales
may
defer
next
hearing
two
years
depending
circumstances
cal
penal
code
ann
west
thus
mass
murderer
participated
repeated
violent
crimes
prison
parole
perhaps
expect
delay
suitability
hearings
prisoner
poses
lesser
threat
public
safety
see
might
receive
delay
light
particularized
findings
required
amendment
broad
discretion
given
board
narrow
class
prisoners
covered
amendment
reasonably
expect
prospects
early
release
parole
enhanced
opportunity
annual
hearings
prisoners
amendment
simply
allows
board
avoid
futility
going
motions
reannouncing
denial
parole
suitability
yearly
basis
respondent
suggests
chance
amendment
might
nevertheless
produce
increased
term
confinement
prisoners
might
experience
change
circumstances
render
suitable
parole
period
hearings
brief
respondent
respondent
fails
however
provide
support
speculation
multiple
murderers
prisoners
subject
amendment
might
experience
unanticipated
change
sufficiently
monumental
alter
suitability
release
parole
even
assume
possibility
change
moreover
reason
conclude
amendment
effect
prisoner
actual
term
confinement
current
record
provides
basis
concluding
prisoner
experiences
drastic
change
circumstances
precluded
seeking
expedited
hearing
board
indeed
california
suggested
circumstances
hypothesized
respondent
board
advance
california
dept
corrections
morales
suitability
hearing
jackson
cal
california
department
corrections
indicates
brief
board
practice
review
merit
communication
inmate
asking
earlier
suitability
hearing
reply
brief
petitioner
board
decision
postpone
hearing
subject
administrative
appeal
controlling
regulations
also
seem
preserve
possibility
belated
appeal
see
tit
cal
code
regulations
time
limits
administrative
appeals
directory
may
extended
expedited
hearing
board
either
volition
pursuant
order
entered
administrative
appeal
remove
possibility
harm
even
hypothetical
circumstances
suggested
respondent
even
prisoner
denied
expedited
hearing
reason
think
postponement
extend
prisoner
actual
period
confinement
according
california
possibility
immediate
release
finding
suitability
parole
largely
theoretica
jackson
cal
many
cases
prisoner
parole
release
date
comes
least
several
years
finding
suitability
extent
cases
representative
follows
practical
effect
hearing
postponement
significant
board
bound
statute
consider
sentencing
information
relevant
setting
parole
release
dates
eye
toward
establishing
uniform
terms
offenses
similar
gravity
magnitude
respect
threat
public
cal
penal
code
ann
west
standards
fact
prisoner
suitable
parole
prior
date
hearing
certainly
relevant
board
decision
setting
actual
release
date
california
dept
corrections
morales
board
retains
discretion
expedite
release
date
prisoner
thus
prisoner
show
suitable
parole
two
years
prior
finding
board
might
well
entitled
secure
release
date
reflects
fact
prisoner
ultimate
date
release
entirely
unaffected
change
timing
suitability
hearings
iv
ordered
footnotes
pendency
action
respondent
appeared
california
dept
corrections
morales
board
suitability
hearing
board
found
respondent
unsuitable
determined
reasonable
expect
found
suitable
parole
following
two
annual
hearings
respondent
next
suitability
hearing
set
opinions
lindsey
weaver
miller
suggested
enhancements
measure
criminal
punishment
fall
within
ex
post
facto
prohibition
operate
disadvantage
covered
offenders
see
lindsey
weaver
miller
language
unnecessary
results
cases
inconsistent
framework
developed
collins
youngblood
collins
focus
ex
post
facto
inquiry
whether
legislative
change
produces
ambiguous
sort
disadvantage
dissent
seems
suggest
whether
amendment
affects
prisoner
opportunity
take
advantage
provisions
early
release
see
post
whether
change
alters
definition
criminal
conduct
increases
penalty
crime
punishable
dissent
proposes
line
measures
deprive
prisoners
parole
hearing
make
difficult
prisoners
obtain
release
post
arbitrary
line
absolutely
basis
constitution
delay
parole
hearings
raises
ex
post
facto
concerns
delay
effectively
increases
prisoner
term
confinement
hearing
independent
constitutional
significance
adjustments
mechanisms
surrounding
sentencing
process
evaluated
standard
contrary
dissent
suggestion
see
post
express
view
constitutionality
number
statutes
might
alter
timing
parole
hearings
circumstances
different
present
dissent
suggests
speculation
effect
amendment
prison
terms
run
direction
post
approach
effectively
shifts
state
burden
persuasion
respondent
ex
post
facto
claim
surprisingly
dissent
identifies
support
attempt
undo
settled
rule
claimant
must
bear
risk
existence
alleged
constitutional
violation
although
held
party
asserting
ex
post
facto
claim
need
carry
burden
showing
sentenced
lesser
term
measure
range
punishments
place
previous
statutory
scheme
see
lindsey
washington
never
suggested
challenging
party
may
escape
ultimate
burden
establishing
measure
punishment
changed
indeed
elimination
burden
eviscerate
view
ex
post
facto
clause
reaffirmed
collins
inhibition
upon
passage
ex
post
facto
laws
give
criminal
right
tried
respects
law
force
crime
charged
committed
gibson
mississippi
neither
require
sentence
carried
identical
legal
regime
previously
prevailed
dissent
mischaracterizes
analysis
suggesting
somehow
concocted
reduced
standard
judicial
scrutiny
application
narrow
group
unpopular
multiple
murderers
post
ex
post
facto
standard
apply
today
constant
looks
whether
given
legislative
change
prohibited
effect
altering
definition
crimes
increasing
punishments
application
standard
necessarily
considers
number
factors
including
case
amendment
targets
group
prisoners
california
legislature
deemed
less
likely
others
secure
early
release
parole
california
dept
corrections
morales
constitutional
standard
neither
enhanced
reduced
basis
societal
animosity
toward
multiple
murderers
cf
ibid
california
dept
corrections
morales
justice
stevens
justice
souter
joins
dissenting
respondent
charged
murder
wife
despite
respondent
previous
conviction
murder
despite
serious
character
offense
california
accepted
plea
nolo
contendere
offense
murder
trial
judge
imposed
sentence
imprisonment
years
life
respondent
became
eligible
parole
law
effect
time
respondent
offense
entitled
hearing
board
prison
terms
board
year
thereafter
however
california
amended
parole
statute
amended
statute
permitted
board
delay
parole
hearings
multiple
murderers
three
years
provided
board
found
reasonable
expect
parole
granted
hearing
following
years
board
determined
respondent
yet
suitable
parole
making
requisite
findings
board
deferred
respondent
next
hearing
three
years
question
whether
california
legislature
elimination
statutory
right
annual
parole
hearing
increased
punishment
california
dept
corrections
morales
respondent
offense
thereby
violated
ex
post
facto
clause
answering
question
begin
certain
propositions
law
understand
dispute
propositions
compel
conclusion
applied
general
prison
population
replacing
statutory
right
annual
parole
hearing
right
hearing
every
three
years
violate
ex
post
facto
clause
federal
constitution
though
nowhere
disputing
conclusion
majority
holds
amendment
california
parole
statute
ex
post
facto
legislation
applies
small
subset
prison
population
namely
multiple
murderers
see
ante
board
must
make
special
finding
depriving
prisoner
annual
hearing
see
ante
view
neither
features
sufficient
save
otherwise
plainly
invalid
statute
constitution
provides
state
shall
pass
ex
post
facto
law
art
framers
viewed
prohibition
ex
post
facto
legislation
one
fundamental
protections
arbitrary
oppressive
government
thus
example
madison
noted
ex
post
facto
laws
contrary
first
principles
social
compact
every
principle
sound
legislation
federalist
rossiter
ed
similarly
hamilton
counted
prohibition
ex
post
facto
laws
among
california
dept
corrections
morales
three
protections
described
greater
securities
liberty
republicanism
constitution
contains
federalist
rossiter
ed
although
text
ex
post
facto
clause
basic
coverage
well
understood
least
since
calder
bull
dall
identified
four
categories
ex
post
facto
laws
case
us
today
implicates
third
calder
category
consists
law
changes
punishment
inflicts
greater
punishment
law
annexed
crime
committed
ibid
emphasis
original
consistently
condemned
laws
falling
category
thus
beazell
ohio
justice
stone
noted
settled
decisions
well
known
citation
may
dispensed
statute
makes
burdensome
punishment
crime
commission
prohibited
ex
post
facto
reaffirmed
justice
stone
observation
years
ago
beazell
formulation
faithful
best
knowledge
original
understanding
ex
post
facto
clause
legislatures
may
retroactively
increase
punishment
criminal
acts
collins
youngblood
california
dept
corrections
morales
light
importance
framers
placed
ex
post
facto
clause
always
enforced
prohibition
retroactive
enhancement
scrupulously
statute
authorizes
increased
term
imprisonment
past
offense
invalid
thus
although
carefully
examined
laws
changing
conditions
confinement
determine
whether
favorable
unfavorable
prisoner
see
rooney
north
dakota
medley
member
ever
voted
uphold
statute
retroactively
increased
length
time
prisoner
must
remain
imprisoned
past
offenses
see
miller
florida
unanimous
opinion
weaver
graham
without
dissent
ex
post
facto
jurisprudence
concerning
increased
punishment
established
three
important
propositions
first
squarely
held
individual
prisoner
need
prove
retroactive
application
law
authorizing
increased
punishment
past
offense
actually
affected
sentence
prisoner
must
serve
lindsey
washington
example
petitioners
sentenced
law
required
sentence
years
law
effect
time
offense
gave
judge
discretion
impose
lesser
sentence
state
contended
petitioners
failed
show
ex
post
facto
violation
petitioners
might
received
sentence
even
old
law
unanimously
rejected
state
contention
ex
post
facto
clause
looks
standard
punishment
prescribed
statute
rather
sentence
actually
imposed
removal
possibility
sentence
less
fifteen
years
end
petitioners
freed
confinement
tutelage
parole
california
dept
corrections
morales
revocable
operates
detriment
sense
standard
punishment
adopted
new
statute
onerous
old
second
noted
impermissible
increase
punishment
crime
may
result
statutes
govern
initial
sentencing
also
statutes
govern
parole
early
release
thus
weaver
graham
addressed
florida
statute
altered
availability
credits
rejected
notion
removal
credits
constitute
increase
punishment
explaining
prisoner
eligibility
reduced
imprisonment
significant
factor
entering
defendant
decision
plea
bargain
judge
calculation
sentence
imposed
citing
wolff
mcdonnell
warden
marrero
see
also
greenfield
scafati
supp
mass
availability
good
conduct
deductions
considered
essential
element
sentence
summarily
aff
finally
held
increase
punishment
occurs
state
deprives
person
opportunity
take
advantage
provisions
early
release
california
dept
corrections
morales
thus
weaver
emphasized
petitioner
disadvantaged
reduced
opportunity
shorten
time
prison
simply
good
conduct
statement
weaver
consistent
holding
lindsey
plainly
substantial
disadvantage
petitioners
deprived
opportunity
receive
sentence
give
freedom
custody
control
prior
expiration
term
see
also
greenfield
scafati
supp
mass
summarily
aff
affirming
judgment
found
ex
post
facto
violation
statute
eliminated
opportunity
accumulate
first
six
months
following
parole
revocation
applied
inmate
whose
crime
occurred
statute
enactment
settled
propositions
make
perfectly
clear
retroactive
application
simple
statute
changed
frequency
statutorily
mandated
annual
parole
suitability
hearing
constrict
inmate
opportunity
earn
early
release
thus
constitute
increased
punishment
violation
ex
post
facto
clause
thus
surprise
nearly
every
federal
appeals
state
consider
issue
held
see
roller
cavanagh
cert
dism
akins
snow
cert
denied
rodriguez
parole
commission
state
reynolds
griffin
state
cert
denied
tiller
california
dept
corrections
morales
klincar
cert
denied
amendment
issue
case
course
simple
statute
therefore
necessary
consider
whether
particular
features
amendment
eliminate
ex
post
facto
problems
ii
california
dept
corrections
morales
believe
amendment
implicates
core
ex
post
facto
concern
narrow
class
affected
individuals
belies
majority
acceptance
proposition
evident
focus
ante
amendment
save
costs
surely
even
today
multiple
murderers
make
small
fraction
total
parole
hearings
eliminating
hearings
seem
unlikely
create
substantial
savings
indeed
though
majority
gives
credence
california
dept
corrections
morales
rationale
petitioners
much
frank
motivations
urge
reexamine
ex
post
facto
jurisprudence
view
national
trend
towards
implementation
harsher
penalties
conditions
confinement
offenders
inmates
brief
petitioners
omitted
agree
petitioners
implication
amendment
better
viewed
part
national
trend
toward
legislation
california
statute
challenged
case
one
many
currently
popular
statutes
designed
cut
back
availability
parole
california
legislature
adopted
several
similar
provisions
recent
years
number
passed
comparable
legislation
measures
course
entirely
legitimate
operate
prospectively
importance
prevalence
surely
justify
careful
review
measures
change
consequences
past
conduct
danger
legislative
overreaching
ex
post
facto
clause
protects
particularly
acute
target
legislation
narrow
group
unpopular
put
mildly
multiple
murderers
obviously
little
legislative
hay
made
cultivating
multiple
murderer
vote
statute
amendment
therefore
concerns
animate
ex
post
facto
clause
demand
enhanced
california
dept
corrections
morales
majority
seems
believe
reduced
judicial
scrutiny
iii
amendment
allows
board
defer
annual
hearings
multiple
murderers
three
years
board
finds
reasonable
expect
parole
granted
hearing
following
years
bases
finding
statute
contain
provision
authorizing
sort
review
board
order
dispensing
annual
hearings
provide
procedure
dealing
exceptional
changed
circumstances
warranting
setting
release
date
might
arise
next
scheduled
hearing
short
amended
statute
vests
unreviewable
discretion
board
california
dept
corrections
morales
dispense
annual
hearings
three
years
making
required
finding
view
requirement
board
make
finding
insufficient
render
amendment
constitutional
previously
expressed
doubts
early
release
regime
substitutes
administrative
discretion
statutory
requirements
complies
ex
post
facto
clause
weaver
graham
noted
state
statute
issue
reduced
amount
inmate
automatically
entitled
simply
avoiding
disciplinary
infractions
performing
assigned
tasks
state
argued
however
statute
whole
caused
inmates
increase
punishment
statute
provided
inmates
new
ways
earn
rejected
state
argument
noting
award
extra
gain
time
purely
discretionary
contingent
wishes
correctional
authorities
special
behavior
inmate
ibid
reasoning
behind
skepticism
weaver
applicable
case
true
almost
factfinding
regime
board
occasionally
make
mistakes
defer
parole
hearings
inmates
found
suitable
hearings
california
dept
corrections
morales
parole
hearing
prerequisite
early
release
inmates
affected
board
errors
punishment
increased
view
speculation
possible
methods
correcting
board
erroneous
findings
persuading
board
reinstate
cancelled
hearing
basis
new
evidence
plainly
insufficient
bridge
significant
gap
protection
afforded
unqualified
right
annual
hearings
unreviewable
discretion
administrative
agency
dispense
hearings
iv
california
dept
corrections
morales
second
majority
attempts
circumvent
ex
post
facto
cases
characterizing
risk
statute
actually
increase
inmate
punishment
speculative
view
speculation
runs
direction
present
california
parole
procedures
possibility
inmate
benefit
amendment
instead
unqualified
statutory
right
annual
hearing
amendment
leaves
inmate
protection
either
risk
mistaken
prediction
risk
board
may
influenced
interest
curtailing
workload
moreover
statute
gives
inmate
right
advance
favorable
changed
circumstances
basis
different
result
unlike
ex
post
facto
law
condemned
weaver
also
unlike
statutes
approved
dobbert
florida
rooney
north
dakota
amendment
contains
benefits
inmate
postponing
reducing
number
parole
hearings
ostensibly
sole
purpose
cutting
administrative
costs
amendment
best
leave
inmate
position
almost
inevitably
delay
grant
parole
cases
concludes
nevertheless
speculative
say
statute
increase
inmates
punishment
draw
conclusion
speculates
accuracy
board
predictions
speculates
parole
suitability
class
prisoners
speculates
length
time
elapses
eventual
parole
hearing
ultimate
release
date
speculates
availability
procedures
deal
unexpected
changes
circumstances
engage
pure
california
dept
corrections
morales
speculation
condemning
respondent
assertion
increased
punishment
speculative
seems
unpersuasive
actually
perverse
respectfully
dissent
framers
included
two
separate
clauses
constitution
prohibiting
ex
post
facto
legislation
see
art
cl
bill
attainder
ex
post
facto
law
shall
passed
art
state
shall
pass
bill
attainder
ex
post
facto
law
law
impairing
obligation
contracts
highlights
framers
appraisal
importance
prohibition
every
law
makes
action
done
passing
law
innocent
done
criminal
punishes
action
every
law
aggravates
crime
makes
greater
committed
every
law
changes
punishment
inflicts
greater
punishment
law
annexed
crime
committed
every
law
alters
legal
rules
evidence
receives
less
different
testimony
law
required
time
commission
offence
order
convict
offender
calder
bull
dall
emphasis
original
two
contrary
decisions
cited
parties
see
bailey
gardebring
jackson
cal
undermine
thesis
bailey
gardebring
decision
appeals
found
ex
post
facto
violation
minnesota
failed
provide
prisoner
annual
parole
hearing
however
one
member
majority
premised
conclusion
view
minnesota
parole
regulations
laws
member
majority
concurred
result
authored
opinion
jackson
california
upheld
amendment
issue
case
thus
speak
general
situation
described
text
bill
attainder
legislative
act
inflicts
punishment
without
judicial
trial
egislative
acts
matter
form
apply
either
named
individuals
easily
ascertainable
members
group
way
inflict
punishment
without
judicial
trial
bills
attainder
prohibited
constitution
lovett
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
prohibitions
ex
post
facto
laws
bills
attainder
obviously
closely
related
see
fletcher
peck
cranch
california
legislature
appears
altered
frequency
parole
hearings
prisoners
least
three
occasions
since
amendment
see
cal
ch
cal
ch
cal
ch
see
laws
ch
comp
laws
ann
rev
stat
ch
code
ann
supp
though
suggests
multiple
murderers
particularly
low
likelihood
parole
ante
statute
effect
time
petitioner
offense
determined
even
multiple
murderers
sufficiently
likely
candidates
early
release
entitled
annual
parole
hearing
grant
statutory
right
reflected
california
legislature
judgment
hearing
provided
important
avenue
reduced
punishment
ex
post
facto
clause
properly
construed
prevent
legislature
revising
judgment
retroactively
may
reasons
particularly
skeptical
reliability
board
findings
respect
deferrals
amendment
board
determination
inmate
currently
suitable
parole
determination
inmate
suitable
parole
next
three
years
expected
separate
determinations
state
litigation
constitutionality
statute
state
argued
compliance
requirement
separate
determinations
virtually
impossible
oth
decision
deny
parole
delay
subsequent
hearing
two
years
must
jackson
cal
indeed
respondent
case
findings
parole
suitability
possibility
future
parole
remarkably
similar
board
california
dept
corrections
morales
findings
majority
relies
heavily
thus
seem
particularly
questionable
utility
find
somewhat
ironic
majority
posits
existence
nonstatutory
extraordinary
remedies
cure
legislation
ostensibly
motivated
entirely
interest
administrative
efficiency
page