Robert Lewis Himes v. S. Frank Thompson

Bad Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 7615·336 F.3d 848·2003 WL 21544120·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6026·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13834
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 10, 200301-35311California7,871 words

Opinion

Opinion

Berzon, J.

The Oregon State Board of Parole and PosL-Prison Supervision (“the Board of Parole”) found that Robert Lewis Himes had violated the terms of his parole and ordered him re-incarcerated to serve twenty-nine and one half additional years. The Board of Parole based its decision on parole regulations more onerous than those in place at the time Himes committed the offense for which he was incarcerated. The question for decision is whether that determination violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const, art. I, § 10. We conclude that it did and therefore reverse the district court’s denial of Himes’ petition for habeas corpus.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1978 Himes sexually assaulted a woman and a thirteen-year old girl at knife point. He was arrested and pleaded guilty to attempted rape, first degree rape, first degree sodomy, and first degree robbery. The state trial court imposed consecutive sentences, totaling 70 years. Fifteen years later, on April 24, 1994, the Board of Parole released Himes on parole, a decision that, according to Himes’ parole offi cer, “created a considerable stir” in the community.

A. Revocation of Himes’ Parole

On parole,…

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.