California Department of Corrections v. Morales

Background

A man who had been convicted twice of murder became eligible for parole after a 15-to-life sentence. California law originally required annual parole-suitability hearings. In 1981 the State changed the rules to let the parole board skip one or two yearly hearings for prisoners convicted of more than one life-taking offense if the board found parole unlikely. After the board deferred this man’s next hearing, he sued, and a federal appeals court sided with him.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the 1981 change altered the crime’s definition or increased the punishment attached to it. The justices said the Ex Post Facto Clause targets laws that change penalties or criminal definitions. Because the amendment left the sentence and the substantive rules for parole eligibility unchanged, it only changed the timing and procedure for later hearings. The Court found the risk that this timing change would actually lengthen confinement to be speculative and not a sufficient increase in punishment.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the appeals court and allowed the State’s deferral rule to be applied to offenses committed before 1981. That means parole boards may lawfully space out later hearings for the targeted group when they make the required findings. The decision limits successful ex post facto challenges to laws that clearly increase penalties or change the definition of crimes.

Dissents or concurrances

Two justices dissented, arguing the change did increase punishment because it removed a statutory right to annual hearings for a defined class and vested broad administrative discretion that can delay the chance for early release.