In re Lomax

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 761·66 Cal. App. 4th 639·78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 220·98 Daily Journal DAR 9631·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6990
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 4, 1998No. A079217; No. A080380California3,183 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kline, J.

These consolidated appeals by the Attorney General involve the identical question of whether a new regulation of the Department of Corrections, which prevents prisoners from obtaining reinstatement of conduct/work credits that had been forfeited for misconduct, violates the ex post facto prohibition when applied to prisoners whose misconduct was committed before the regulation was promulgated. In both cases, the trial courts found a violation of the ex post facto clause. We affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Kenneth Jackson, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, committed acts of misconduct in November 1993 and in June 1995, which were classified as division B offenses and resulted in forfeiture of 150 days of credits for each offense, for a total of 300 days forfeited. At the time Jackson committed these acts of misconduct, the Department of Corrections (Department) permitted inmates to apply for restoration of credits forfeited as a result of a *642 division B offense if they remained free of discipline for six months. In March 1996, however, the Department revised its regulations to prohibit the restoration of credits forfeited for serious disciplinary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.