In Re Michael D. Vicks on Habeas Corpus

Summary

The opinion rejects challenges to applying Marsy’s Law parole-hearing amendments to prisoners whose crimes predated the amendments. It concludes that the amended scheduling procedures do not create a significant risk of prolonging incarceration, either facially or as applied to Vicks, because the Board may advance hearings upon changed circumstances or new information and the substantive parole criteria remain unchanged. The opinion also interprets the statute to permit an inmate’s initial request to advance a hearing at any time after a parole denial. Because the supplied text is truncated before the disposition, the disposition is reported as undetermined.