Charles Denton Watson v. Wayne Estelle

886 F.2d 1093 Charles Denton WATSON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Wayne ESTELLE, Respondent-Appellant. No. 87-6599. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 6, 1988. Opinion Oct. 6, 1988 Vacated. Decided Sept. 21, 1989. Carol S. Frederick, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellant. Donald Specter, San Quentin Prison Law Office, San Quentin, Cal., for petitioner-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before GOODWIN and HALL, Circuit Judges, and MARQUEZ, * District Judge. CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge: 1 We recalled the mandate from our judgment in Watson v. Estelle, 859 F.2d 105 (9th Cir.1988), pursuant to our power to prevent injustice and to protect the integrity of our processes. See Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988); Aerojet-General Corp. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 478 F.2d 248 , 254 (9th Cir.1973). We vacate that opinion and enter this one in its stead. 2 Petitioner-appellee Charles Denton Watson sought a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent-appellant Wayne Estelle to provide him with annual parole hearings. The district…

We recalled the mandate from our judgment in Watson v. Estelle, 859 F.2d 105 (9th Cir.1988), pursuant to our power to prevent injustice and to protect the integrity of our processes. See Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988); Aerojet-General Corp. v. Ameri *1094 can Arbitration Ass’n, 478 F.2d 248 , 254 (9th Cir.1973). We vacate that opinion and enter this one in its stead.

Petitioner-appellee Charles Denton Watson sought a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent-appellant Wayne Estelle to provide him with annual parole hearings. The district court granted the writ on the grounds that Watson was entitled to annual parole hearings under the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. See Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 (“No State shall ... pass any ... ex post facto Law”). Estelle appeals this ruling.

Watson and a number of female followers of Charles Manson committed seven horrific murders in August, 1969. At the time he committed these crimes, Watson was subject to punishment by death, and indeed he was sentenced to death in 1971. The California Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty the following year, see People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d 628 , 100…

concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the majority. Because I do not agree entirely with the reasoning used to reach that result, I file this concurring opinion.

In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Watson challenges the ex post facto constitutionality of the 1981 amendments to California’s Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL).

At the time Watson committed his crimes, California law provided for “periodic review” of prisoner parole suitability, with no statutory requirement regarding the frequency of such review. The DSL took effect in 1977, providing that each inmate’s prospects for parole would be evaluated annually. In 1981, the DSL was amended to create an exception to the annual review requirement. The amendment provided that inmates convicted of more than one offense involving the taking of life (such as Watson) could have their parole suitability hearings delayed by the California Board of Prison Terms for up to three years, provided that the Board made certain written findings. In 1983, the Board delayed Watson’s hearing for three years pursuant to the 1981 amendments. Watson argues that the 1981 amendments are unconstitutional under the Ex Post Fac-to clause…