Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Willie D. Alexander v. Oregon State Board of Parole
Citations: 73 F.3d 368; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40807; 1995 WL 765982Docket: 95-35515
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 28, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Willie D. Alexander, an Oregon prisoner, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, arguing that the Oregon Board of Parole violated the Ex Post Facto Clause during his 1992 sentence reduction hearing. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and reviews the denial de novo, applying the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings. Alexander was sentenced in 1988 to ten years for second degree robbery and five years for unauthorized vehicle use, both committed while he was an escapee. During a 1992 hearing, the Board granted him a six-month sentence reduction but allegedly used a three-year review period instead of a five-year period, implying the application of an amended regulation. To establish an Ex Post Facto claim, three criteria must be met: the challenged action must be a law, it must apply retroactively, and it must be detrimental to the individual. Alexander contended the Board improperly applied the amended regulation but the court found that the Board referred to the regulations in effect at the time of Alexander's offenses, which allowed a maximum 20% reduction of the prison term. The Board's choice of review period, which Alexander opted for to avoid consideration of his escape, did not constitute an Ex Post Facto violation, as the correct version of the regulations was applied. Additionally, Alexander claimed the Board recalculated his parole release date using an amended version of the regulations, which he argued was disadvantageous. However, the court maintained that the state court's interpretation of its laws must be respected unless it is unreasonable. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that Alexander did not demonstrate a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Oregon regulations do not mandate the recalculation of Alexander's parole release date following a sentence reduction, as the relevant regulation does not apply to him. According to Or. Admin. R. 255-35-023 (1985), the initial parole release date is set without requiring a new calculation when the Board overrides a judicially imposed minimum sentence, as established in Jeldness v. Board of Parole, 759 P.2d 1102 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). The district court's conclusion, which aligns with the Oregon state court's interpretation, confirms that the Board was not obligated to apply the regulation to Alexander's case. Consequently, the district court appropriately denied Alexander's petition, affirming that the Board's actions did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, as indicated in Weaver, 53 F.3d 959. The decision is affirmed and deemed suitable for resolution without oral argument, with a note that this disposition is not for publication or citation in the circuit's courts except under specific rules.