In re Holmes

The Board of Prison Terms (Board) appeals the order partially granting Wendell Holmes’s petition for habeas corpus. Although we dismiss the appeal as moot, we discuss part of the order requiring the Board to determine why Holmes should not be released within one year of his parole suitability finding or to give specific reasons why his release date should be beyond that one-year time. 1 We explain why we have concluded the court incorrectly applied ex post facto principles and accordingly erred in issuing the order.

I

Holmes was convicted in 1975 of first degree murder and sentenced in that year to life imprisonment. In 1983, the Board held two hearings *485 concerning Holmes’s suitability for release, one under the determinate sentencing law (DSL) and one under the indeterminate sentencing law (ISL) parole board rules (PRB) promulgated in 1976 as required by In re Stan-worth (1982) 33 Cal.3d 176 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 783 , 654 P.2d 1311 ]. Both panels found Holmes suitable for parole. The DSL panel set a parole date of June 20, 1992; the ISL panel set a parole date of April 20, 1990. Both panels used regulations promulgated after the date of Holmes’s crime. Contending the…