Addleman v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, 52748-2
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | GOODLOE; DOLLIVER |
| Citation | 107 Wn.2d 503,730 P.2d 1327 |
| Parties | Lincoln Lane ADDLEMAN, Jr., William Gene Scribner, Sr., Joseph Charles Huston, Albert Charles Brown, Jerry William Crane, Michael Leroy Carson, Richard Albert Fitzgerald, Harrold A. Self, Berry Wayne Gross, Thomas Keys, Mark Brian Aycock, James Edward Dunmore, Melvin Harris Briggs, Timothy Sullivan, Monty Edward Triplett, Manuel David Rosalez, David Martin Rhoad, Gallan R. Fridell, Buddy Lee Baker, Charles David Marsteller, Wade E. Kirk, Francis Louie, Jr., Donald D. Rickard, Fred L. Casillas, Mitchell Wayne Frank, Nathaniel Lacy, Willis Stanmore, Kenneth Bernhardt, Sidney B. Sparks, Donald R. Plunkett, Jr., Jon W. Martin, Ross De Spenza, Herman D. Hartzog, James Arthur Huston, Clifton Cook, Clifton James Briceno, Ronald Melvin Fraser, Andrew William Gardee, Robert W. Sheaffer, Gerald Allen Dauenhauer, William Alan Regan, John Charles Kurth, Jack McNutt, Appellants, v. BOARD OF PRISON TERMS AND PAROLES, Walt Hubbard, Thomas Manning, William E. Henry, Roxanne Park, Former Governor John Spellman, and Their Agents, Employees, Attorneys, and Their Successors, et al., Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 52748-2,52748-2 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1986 |
Page 503
Joseph Charles Huston, Albert Charles Brown, Jerry William
Crane, Michael Leroy Carson, Richard Albert Fitzgerald,
Harrold A. Self, Berry Wayne Gross, Thomas Keys, Mark Brian
Aycock, James Edward Dunmore, Melvin Harris Briggs, Timothy
Sullivan, Monty Edward Triplett, Manuel David Rosalez, David
Martin Rhoad, Gallan R. Fridell, Buddy Lee Baker, Charles
David Marsteller, Wade E. Kirk, Francis Louie, Jr., Donald
D. Rickard, Fred L. Casillas, Mitchell Wayne Frank,
Nathaniel Lacy, Willis Stanmore, Kenneth Bernhardt, Sidney
B. Sparks, Donald R. Plunkett, Jr., Jon W. Martin, Ross De
Spenza, Herman D. Hartzog, James Arthur Huston, Clifton
Cook, Clifton James Briceno, Ronald Melvin Fraser, Andrew
William Gardee, Robert W. Sheaffer, Gerald Allen Dauenhauer,
William Alan Regan, John Charles Kurth, Jack McNutt, Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF PRISON TERMS AND PAROLES, Walt Hubbard, Thomas
Manning, William E. Henry, Roxanne Park, Former Governor
John Spellman, and Their Agents, Employees, Attorneys, and
Their Successors, et al., Respondents.
En Banc.
[730 P.2d 1328]
Page 504
Lincoln Lane Addleman, Jr., Walla Walla, pro se.John Ziegler, Waitsburg, John Midgley, Wolfe, Lobsenz & Cullen, James Lobsenz, Seattle, for appellants.
Kenneth Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Kathleen D. Spong, Paul Silver, Aaron K. Owada, Asst. Attys. Gen., Olympia, for respondents.
Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, Deborah J. Phillips, Robert Lasnik, Deputy Co. Prosecutors, Seattle, Michael Redman, Washington Assn. of Prosecuting Attys., Olympia, amici curiae for respondents Washington Ass'n of Prosecuting Attorneys.
GOODLOE, Justice.
We accepted certified review of consolidated habeas corpus petitions alleging the original RCW 9.95.009 has (1) an ex post facto infirmity due to its abolition of the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles in 1988 and (2) statutory construction problems and [730 P.2d 1329] equal protection problems resulting from interpretations in two Court of Appeals opinions. Recently enacted legislation corrects the ex post facto concern and clarifies the statute's intent remedying the equal protection concerns.
On August 2, 1984, appellant Lincoln Lane Addleman filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in Walla Walla County Superior Court. Subsequently, numerous other Washington State Penitentiary inmates filed nearly identical complaints prepared by Addleman. All complaints appear to have been treated as habeas corpus petitions.
Substantively, appellants seek application of the standard sentence ranges in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA) to their crimes which were committed prior to the SRA's effective date of June 30, 1984. Appellants also allege ex post facto infirmities by the abolition of the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles in 1988.
Factually, the complaints alleged each inmate (1) had been convicted of one or more felonies before July, 1984; (2) had received before July 1984 a minimum term from the Board greater than predicted would be imposed under the
Page 505
SRA; and (3) was entitled to have the Board reset the term of confinement pursuant to the SRA which the Board refused to do.The Board filed a response to Addleman's complaint. On January 25, 1985 the Walla Walla County Superior Court denied the consolidated petitions relying on In re Blair, 38 Wash.App. 670, 688 P.2d 532 (1984) and In re Townsend, 38 Wash.App. 727, 688 P.2d 547 (1984).
Appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, Division Three, which certified the case to this court pursuant to RCW 2.06.030. By commissioner ruling, certification was accepted on May 28, 1986.
Appellants make a three-pronged challenge to RCW 9.95.009. RCW 9.95.009 is section 24 of the SRA and addresses the continued existence and duties of the Board under the SRA. One challenge is directed at RCW 9.95.009(1), and alleges an ex post facto infirmity by the abolition of the Board in 1988. Two challenges are directed at RCW 9.95.009(2): a statutory construction argument and an equal protection argument. In the 1986 Session, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed (with one minor veto not relevant here) Substitute House Bill 1400 (Laws of 1986, ch. 224, p. 726) which substantially amends RCW 9.95.009. The analysis of each issue will begin with an explanation of the pertinent subsection of RCW 9.95.009 as originally enacted, followed by a discussion of the appellants' challenge, and conclude by addressing the effect of the new legislation on the challenge.
The first issue is whether RCW 9.95.009(1) violates ex post facto prohibitions by its abolition of the Board in July 1988. RCW 9.95.009(1) provides in pertinent part:
(1) On July 1, 1988, the board of prison terms and paroles shall cease to exist. Prior to that time, the board's membership shall be reduced ...
Appellants argue correctly that abolition of the Board in 1988 would violate ex post facto prohibitions because of the Board's duties toward those sentenced before 1984 who will still be incarcerated after July 1988. Under the 1935 parole
Page 506
board act, the Board is authorized among other things to waive certain mandatory minimum terms by a two-thirds vote, RCW 9.95.040, to recompute minimum terms at any time, RCW 9.95.052, and to grant "good time" credits, RCW 9.95.070 and .110. Removing the body that implements these mechanisms which shorten time in prison violates constitutional prohibitions of ex post facto laws.For a law to be ex post facto, two critical elements must be presented: "it must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it." (Footnotes omitted.) Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 964, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). In Weaver, eligibility for good time credits of 5, 10, and 15 days depending on length of stay were statutorily reduced to 3, 6, or 9 days [730 P.2d 1330] and applied to persons convicted before the amendment. The court found ex post facto prohibitions violated because the good time credit was a determinant of the prison sentence which was altered by the amendment to the prisoner's disadvantage. Because "the new provision constricts the inmate's opportunity to earn early release, and thereby makes more onerous the punishment for crimes committed before its enactment", it "runs afoul of the prohibition against ex post facto laws." Weaver, at 35-36, 101 S.Ct. at 968.
The same can be said here. In essence, without the Board to perform...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Shoreline v. McLemore
...... 142 Wash.2d 298, 307, 12 P.3d 585 (2000) (quoting Addleman v. Bd. of Prison Terms & Paroles, 107 Wash.2d 503, 510, ......
-
In re Personal Restraint of Dyer
...In re Pers. Restraint of Powell, 117 Wash.2d 175, 187, 814 P.2d 635 (1991) (emphasis added) (citing Addleman v. Board of Prison Terms & Paroles, 107 Wash.2d 503, 511, 730 P.2d 1327 (1986)). The length of the exceptional sentence must be proportionate to the reasons given by the ISRB. Lockle......
-
Griffin v. Eller
...leaving any language without effect. State v. Malone, 106 Wash.2d 607, 610-11, 724 P.2d 364 (1986); Addleman v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, 107 Wash.2d 503, 509, 730 P.2d 1327 (1986); Timberline Air Serv., Inc. v. Bell Helicopter-Textron, Inc., 125 Wash.2d 305, 314-15, 884 P.2d 920 (......
-
State v. Furman
...219, 691 P.2d 571 (1984)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1672, 118 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992).44 Addleman v. Board of Prison Terms & Paroles, 107 Wash.2d 503, 509, 730 P.2d 1327 (1986) (court may not "read into a statute those things which it conceives the Legislature may have left out uni......