Nevarez v. Barnes, No. 12-17060 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition challenging the application of amended California Penal Code Section 2933.6 against him as a violation of his right against ex post facto application of the law. That amended Section 2933.6 applies only prospectively, only to intervening conduct, and does not result in the forfeiture of credits already earned makes it factually distinguishable from the ex post facto holdings in Weaver v. Graham and Lynce v. Mathis. In this case, petitioner's only intervening conduct - continued gang affiliation - triggered the reduction in time credits. Greenfield v. Scafati also does not support petitioner's position. Accordingly, the state court's denial of relief was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition raising an ex post facto challenge to the application of amended Cal. Penal Code § 2933.6 to deny conduct credits to validated gang affiliates housed in the prison’s security housing unit. When he was validated as a prison gang associate and assessed an indeterminate term in the security housing unit and before § 2933.6 was amended, petitioner was eligible for conduct credits. The panel explained that it was petitioner’s intervening conduct—continued gang affiliation—that triggered the reduction in time credits, and concluded that state court’s denial of relief was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal 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.