Biggs v. Sec'y of Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 11-18021 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseAfter petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison with the possibility of parole, California amended its constitution to give the Governor authority to review parole-board decisions for prisoners convicted of murder. The parole board subsequently found petitioner suitable for parole but the then-Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, reversed the decision. Petitioner claimed that retroactive application of the interim change to the California Constitution violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The court concluded that the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Rosenkrantz was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law, and neither was the Superior Court's decision in petitioner's case that relied on it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a 2006 decision by the Governor of California reversing a 2005 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings finding petitioner suitable for parole. After petitioner’s conviction, California amended its constitution to give the Governor authority to review parole- board decisions for prisoners convicted of murder. The California Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendment in question, Cal. Const. art. V, § 8(b), against an Ex Post Facto challenge. In re Rosenkrantz, 59 P.3d 174 (Cal. 2002). Petitioner contended that In re Rosenkrantz unreasonably applied Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000), which involved a similar challenge to a Georgia state law. The panel held that the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 4, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.