McCright v. Broomfield

Background

Colvin McCright, a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ September 16, 2020 decision finding him unsuitable for parole for three years. He also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee based on financial hardship.

McCright was convicted of first-degree murder in 1972 and received a sentence of seven years to life under California’s Indeterminate Sentencing Law. California repealed that law in 1977 and enacted the Determinate Sentencing Law, which uses a two-stage parole process: the prisoner must first be found suitable for parole, and then a release date is set.

Claim and Analysis

McCright argued that considering him under the newer law’s parole-suitability guidelines, rather than the older law’s guidelines, violated the federal constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. He also relied on what he described as a 1975 state-court settlement agreement that supposedly required the state to set an eight-to-thirteen-year maximum term and release him after that term even if he was not found suitable for parole.

The court explained that McCright had raised similar arguments in an earlier petition challenging a prior parole decision. In that earlier proceeding, the court concluded that Ninth Circuit precedent foreclosed the claims. That precedent held that the newer guidelines require consideration of the same types of factors as the older guidelines, including the offense, age, habits, mental state, character, ability to reform, risk of reoffending, and rehabilitation in prison. Because applying the newer guidelines does not disadvantage prisoners sentenced under the older system, the precedent held that the practice violates neither the ex post facto prohibition nor federal due-process or equal-protection rights.

The court also rejected McCright’s argument concerning the alleged 1975 settlement agreement. He provided no proof of the agreement. The state superior court had found that he provided no documentary evidence and had misstated state law, explaining that even the rules in effect when he was sentenced did not give him a fixed prison term before a finding of parole suitability. The federal court stated that the state court’s interpretation of state law was binding on it and concluded that the Ninth Circuit precedent foreclosed McCright’s ex post facto claim.

Disposition

The court held that the state courts’ rejection of McCright’s claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). It dismissed the habeas petition.

The court denied a certificate of appealability because reasonable judges could not debate whether the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims was wrong. Separately, the court granted McCright’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, relying on his affidavit of poverty.