"Reordering of considerations for necessary decisions within an unchanged penalty do not rise to an ex post facto violation"
How later courts described this case
- "Reordering of considerations for necessary decisions within an unchanged penalty do not rise to an ex post facto violation"
- limiting review to issues developed in brief
- retroactive application of 1996 changes to § 331.1 was not ex post facto violation; question of propriety of habeas corpus as remedy was not reached
- "[W]e leave for another day the question of the propriety of habeas corpus as a remedy.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice CAPPY,
Concurring.
I concur in the result. I agree with Mr. Justice Saylor that the appropriate avenue of relief is a writ of mandamus, and I would dismiss the petition on that basis, without reaching the merits of the underlying issue.