In re Vicks
Annotate this CaseIn 1983, Petitioner was convicted of numerous violent felonies and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, consecutive to a determinate term of thirty-seven years. In 2008, California voters approved Marsy's Law, which increased the period of time between parole hearings. In 2009, the Board of Parole Hearings found Petitioner unsuitable for parole and concluded he should be denied another parole hearing for five years. Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus, contending that application of the new parole procedures to prisoners who committed their crimes prior to the enactment of Marsy's Law violated the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. The court of appeals agreed and vacated the Board's order in part. The Supreme Court reversed, thus rejecting Petitioner's constitutional challenges to Marsy's Law, holding (1) the changes to the parole process effected by Marsy's Law do not, on their face, create a significant risk that life prisoners' incarceration will be prolonged; and (2) Marsy's Law is valid as applied to Defendant. The Court declined to address whether Marsy's Law violated ex post facto principles as applied to life prisoners whose commitment offenses occurred before the passage of Marsy's Law.
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.