Tiller v. Klincar

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MILLER
• Citation: Tiller v. Klincar, 138 Ill.2d 1, 561 N.E.2d 576, 149 Ill.Dec. 206 (Ill. 1990)
• Decision Date: 19 September 1990
• Docket Number: No. 68877,68877
• Parties: , 149 Ill.Dec. 206 John Lee TILLER, Appellee, v. Paul KLINCAR et al., Appellants.

Page 576

561 N.E.2d 576

138 Ill.2d 1, 149 Ill.Dec. 206

John Lee TILLER, Appellee, v. Paul KLINCAR et al., Appellants.

No. 68877.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 19, 1990.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Springfield (Robert J. Ruiz, Sol. Gen., and Terence M. Madsen and Nathan P. Maddox, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for appellants.

John Lee Tiller, of Vienna, appellee pro se.

Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court:

Paul Klincar, Delancey Moore, and Joseph Longo, members of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (the Board), appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Johnson County granting a writ of mandamus to plaintiff, John Lee Tiller, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections. The circuit court ruled that a statutory amendment allowing the Board to schedule parole hearings at longer intervals than were allowed at the time of plaintiff's offense was unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff, and the court ordered the Board to grant plaintiff parole hearings pursuant to the former provision. The court also found that the reasons given plaintiff for denial of his parole application were insufficient as a matter of law and ordered defendants to grant plaintiff a new parole hearing within 60 days. Because application of the statute to plaintiff was found to be unconstitutional, the present appeal lies directly to this court (107 Ill.2d R. 302(a)).

Plaintiff, John Lee Tiller, was convicted of murder, the offense having occurred May 25, 1975, and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 100 to 200 years' imprisonment. Once plaintiff became eligible for parole, he received, from 1984 through 1988, annual parole hearings. On each occasion, the Board denied parole. On denying plaintiff's parole application in 1988, the Board scheduled plaintiff's next parole hearing for October 1991, based on the Board's finding that it was not reasonable to expect that plaintiff would be granted parole at an earlier date. In setting that date, the Board relied on a recent amendment to section 3-3-5 of the Unified Code of Corrections concerning the scheduling of parole hearings (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1988 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1003-3-5).

Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by scheduling his next parole hearing for a date three years after the date of his most recent hearing. According to plaintiff, section 3-3-5(f) of the Code, as amended to permit the Board to set parole hearings more than one year apart, is an ex post facto law as applied to him. Plaintiff further alleged that the Board members violated his due process rights by failing to provide him with sufficient reasons for the denial of his parole. Plaintiff also alleged a third ground for relief, which is not involved here.

The circuit court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to partial judgment in his favor. With respect to the first allegation in plaintiff's complaint, the court found that the retroactive application of section 3-3-5(f) of the Code to plaintiff violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The court therefore ordered defendants to grant plaintiff annual parole hearings. Regarding plaintiff's second allegation, the court found that the reasons given plaintiff for denial of his parole were insufficient as a matter of law and ordered defendants to grant plaintiff a new parole hearing within 60 days of the court's order. Defendants appealed the judgment of the circuit court directly to this court, and their motion for a stay of judgment pending the outcome of this appeal was granted by the circuit court. The circuit court denied plaintiff relief on a third ground raised in the action, but that ruling is not at issue in the present appeal.

Defendants argue here that the circuit court erred in declaring section 3-3-5(f) of the Code unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff. Defendants further maintain that the circuit court erred in finding that plaintiff's due process rights were violated. We shall consider the claims in that order.

Ex Post Facto Claim

Section 3-3-5 of the Code establishes procedures for hearing and evaluating parole applications. (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1988 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1003-3-5.) Paragraph (f) of that section governs the frequency with which parole hearings must be granted. (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1988 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1003-3-5(f).) At the time of plaintiff's commission of his offense in 1975, section 3-3-5(f) of the Code provided, in pertinent part:

"In its decision, the Board shall set the person's time for release, or if it denies parole it shall provide for a rehearing not more than 12 months from the date of denial." Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 1003-3-5(f).

Thus, when plaintiff committed his offense, he was entitled to annual parole hearings once he became eligible for parole (see Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 1003-3-3). Section 3-3-5(f) was later amended several times and, effective January 1, 1988, assumed its current form. The statute now provides, in pertinent part:

"In its decision, the Board shall set the person's time for parole, or if it denies parole it shall provide for a rehearing not less frequently than once every 3 years. The Board may, after denying parole to a person originally sentenced or who became eligible for parole between January 1, 1973 and September 30, 1977, schedule a rehearing no later than 3 years from the date of the parole denial, if the Board finds that it is not reasonable to expect that parole would be granted at a hearing prior to the scheduled rehearing date." (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1988 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1003-3-5(f).)

Thus, section 3-3-5(f) of the Code in its current form permits the Board to schedule plaintiff's parole hearings at intervals of more than one year, provided the Board finds that it is not reasonable to expect that plaintiff would be granted parole before the next scheduled hearing date.

Defendants argue that the circuit court erred in finding that application to plaintiff of the current version of section 3-3-5(f) violates the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10; Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 16.) Defendants contend that although the section applies retrospectively, it does not materially disadvantage plaintiff and, therefore, does not constitute ex post facto punishment. The defendants point to several provisions that, they believe, sufficiently ameliorate the statute's effects. Plaintiff argues that the elimination of his annual parole hearings disadvantages him because it impairs his ability to earn release on parole before the expiration of his sentence. According to plaintiff, this disadvantage is not removed by operation of the additional provisions cited by defendants.

Both the Federal and State Constitutions forbid the enactment of ex post facto laws. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10; Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 16.) An ex post facto law is one that " 'imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed.' " (Weaver v. Graham (1981), 450 U.S. 24, 28, 101 S.Ct. 960, 964, 67 L.Ed.2d 17, 22.) Two elements must be present for a criminal law to be ex post facto: first, the law "must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment," and second, "it must disadvantage the offender affected by it." (Weaver, 450 U.S. at 29, 101 S.Ct. at 964; 67 L.Ed.2d at 23; Lindsey v. Washington (1937), 301 U.S. 397, 401, 57 S.Ct. 797, 799, 81 L.Ed. 1182, 1186.) A law need not impair a vested right to violate the ex post facto prohibition. (Weaver, 450 U.S. at 29, 101 S.Ct. at 964, 67 L.Ed.2d at 23. Even if a statute alters criminal provisions accorded solely by the grace of the legislature, it violates the clause "if it is both retrospective and more onerous than the law in effect on the date of the offense." Weaver, 450 U.S. at 30-31, 101 S.Ct. at 965, 67 L.Ed.2d at 24.

Defendants acknowledge that the legislature intended for the current version of section 3-3-5(f) to apply retroactively to inmates such as plaintiff. The issues before us are whether plaintiff suffers a disadvantage when the Board schedules his next parole hearing at an interval greater than one year pursuant to the current version of section 3-3-5(f), and, if so, whether the disadvantage is sufficiently ameliorated by operation of the additional provisions relied on by defendants.

A similar question was considered by the appellate court in Lett v. Klincar (1986), 151 Ill.App.3d 783, 104 Ill.Dec. 422, 502 N.E.2d 1082. The plaintiff in Lett challenged an earlier version of section 3-3-5(f) of the Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. 1003-3-5(f)), claiming that its application to him violated the ex post facto clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. The plaintiff in Lett, like plaintiff in the case before us, was originally entitled to annual parole hearings. Lett was denied parole in 1984, and the Board, pursuant to the version of section 3-3-5(f) of the Code then in effect, scheduled his next hearing three years from the date of its denial of parole. At that time section 3-3-5(f) of the Code provided, in pertinent part:

"In its decision, the Board shall set the person's time for parole, or if it denies parole it shall provide for a rehearing not less frequently than once every 3 years." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. 1003-3-5(f).)

Citing Rodriguez v. United States Parole Comm'n (7th Cir.1979), 594 F.2d 170, the appellate court concluded in Lett that the version of 3-3-5(f) of the Code in effect in 1983 was an ex post facto law as applied to Lett because it diminished his opportunity for an early release.

The Board would distinguish Lett on two grounds. First, the Board points to the...