explaining that in "post- Weaver cases, [the Court has] . . . considered whether the legislature's action lengthened the sentence without examining the purposes behind the original sentencing scheme," and noting that in Miller, the Court's conclusion that the sentencing guidelines made the punishment more burdensome "rested entirely on an objective appraisal of the impact of the change on the length of the offender's presumptive sentence"
How later courts described this case
- explaining that in "post- Weaver cases, [the Court has] . . . considered whether the legislature's action lengthened the sentence without examining the purposes behind the original sentencing scheme," and noting that in Miller, the Court's conclusion that the sentencing guidelines made the punishment more burdensome "rested entirely on an objective appraisal of the impact of the change on the length of the offender's presumptive sentence"
- explaining that in "post-Weacer cases, [the Court has] . . . considered whether the legislature's action lengthened the sentence without examining the purposes behind the original sentencing scheme," and noting that in Miller, the Court's conclusion that the sentencing guidelines made the punishment more burdensome "rested entirely on an objective appraisal of the impact of the change on the length of the offender's presumptive sentence"
- stating that because petitioner was awarded 1,860 provisional credits which were retroactively canceled as a result of a 1992 amendment, the 1992 amendment “has unquestionably disadvantaged petitioner because it resulted in his rearrest and prolonged his imprisonment” and amounted to an ex post facto clause violation
- holding that “exhaustion would have been futile” because the Florida Supreme Court previously rejected the same claim in other cases and counsel for the state had “not suggested any reason why the Florida courts would have decided petitioner’s case differently.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported overruled — as noted by 2 later courts — not on the Supreme Court's list
While we acknowledge that Lynce has essentially overruled our previous decisions in this area as concerns the Ex Post Facto Clause, we find no indication in Lynce that we must now also recede from our earlier conclusions regarding due process.
2 citing opinionsin partunconfirmed confidence
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bergelson v. Singletary, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14708 (1998)
In response to an order to show cause, the Department argued that Lynce was distinguishable, and that no ex post facto violation had occurred, because Lynce dealt with an offender who was otherwise eligible for provisional credits on the date of his offense, whereas petitioner’s offenses had commenced before any type of prison overcrowding statute had become effective.
Distinguished by Stacy v. Middlesex County Sheriff, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 723 (1998)
Furthermore, Piggot v. Comm’r of Correc., 40 Mass.App.Ct. 678 (1996), and Lynce v. Mathis, 117 S.Ct. 891 (1997), cited by Stacy, are distinguishable from the present case.
The opinion
Justice Thomas,
with whom Justice Scalia joins,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I understand the Court’s opinion to hold that retroactively canceling petitioner’s so-called “provisional credits” after he has used them to gain his freedom violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. This result naturally follows from our consistent view that the Clause is intended to prohibit laws that “retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punish *450 ment for criminal acts.” Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37, 43 (1990).
Whether a particular law retroactively increases a criminal punishment is often a close question. In California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U. S. 499 (1995), for example, respondent challenged a retroactive change to the frequency of parole hearings. Given that the retroactive change “create[d] only the most speculative and attenuated risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes,” we found no ex post facto violation. Id., at 514 .
Unlike in Morales , the increase in petitioner’s punishment here was neither “speculative” nor “attenuated.” Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of attempted murder and was duly sentenced. During the period of his confinement, petitioner accumulated release credits under a state statute adopted in response to prison overcrowding. Those credits enabled petitioner to be freed from prison before his sentence (as originally imposed) had run. Shortly before petitioner secured his release, however, the Florida Legislature enacted a statute preventing certain categories of offenders from taking advantage of the provisional credits. Although petitioner’s offense placed him among the offenders denied the opportunity to acquire those particular credits, the statute was not applied retroactively. Petitioner was thus released. The state attorney general subsequently issued an opinion giving the statute retroactive effect. The State thereafter rearrested petitioner and returned him to custody.
Under these narrow circumstances, I agree with the Court that the State’s retroactive nullification of petitioner’s previously accrued, and then used, release credits violates the Constitution’s ban on ex post facto lawmaking. I do not, however, join the majority’s discussion of Weaver v. Graham, 450 U. S. 24 (1981), which I find unnecessary to the resolution of this case. In Weaver , we considered whether a statute *451 that merely altered the availability of “good conduct” credits ran afoul of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Id., at 25 . The present case involves not merely an effect on the availability of future release credits, but the retroactive elimination of credits already earned and used. Accordingly, I concur in part and concur in the judgment.