ex post facto clause in Rhode Island

2011We further held that “the ex post facto clause is not implicated when the department changes its procedures to conform to the mandates of the statute” and that “the ex post facto clause does not give a prisoner a vested right to a favorable, but erroneous, interpretation of the law.” Leach, 689 A.2d at 397 (quoting Lerner v. Gill, 751 F.2d 450, 457 (1st Cir.1985)).

1997Unfortunately for the inmate-applicants, our interpretation was less generous than that of the department, but “the ex post facto clause does not give a prisoner a vested right to a favorable, but erroneous, interpretation of the law.” Lerner, 751 F.2d at 457 (citing Mileham v. Simmons, 588 F.2d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir.1979)).

1998A critical element for a law to be considered in violation of the ex post facto clause is that the law "must disadvantage the offender affected by it." In re Skawinski, 538 A.2d 1006 , 1009 (R.I. 1988).

1997We have noted that “the ex post facto clause applies only to laws that work substantive, rather than procedural changes.” Skawinski v. State, 538 A.2d 1006, 1009 (R.I.1988).

2009Webb v. Cianci, 591 A.2d 1193, 1214-15 (R.I.1991) (quoting Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352, 1356 (R.I.1983)). [9] In his brief, defendant concedes that "it is likewise clear that where a statute of limitations is extended prior to the then-not-yet-time-barred action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs." See Fiorenzano, 690 A.2d at 861 ("When, as here, a statute of limitations is extended prior to the barring of an action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs."); see also Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 616-17, 632-33 , 123 S.Ct. 2446 , 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003) (holding

2001Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352, 1356-57 (R.I.1983), pet. for writ of habeas corpus granted, 580 F.Supp. 1056 (D.R.I.1984), rev'd, 751 F.2d 450 (1st.

2022This is the current state of the law. 13 In State v. Gibson, 182 A.3d 540 (R.I. 2018), in response to the defendant’s ex post facto challenge to the registration act’s amendments, which extended the duration of his duty to register, this Court made clear that, although the duty to register “follows as a consequence of a criminal conviction, sexual offender registration and notification is a civil regulatory process.” Gibson, 182 A.3d at 554 (quoting State v. Germane, 971 A.2d 555, 593 (R.I. 2009)).

2018Likewise, we have "held that a violation of the ex post facto clause occurs when there is a 'retrospective application of law that disadvantages an offender by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.' " State v. Pereira , 973 A.2d 19 , 32 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Town of West Warwick v. Local 1104, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC , 745 A.2d 786 , 788 (R.I. 2000) ). 17 "It is black letter law that the ex post facto clause in both our state and federal constitutions only prohibit retroactive penal legislation." State v. Germane

2009This Court has held that a violation of the ex post facto clause occurs when there is a "retrospective application of law that disadvantages an offender `by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.'" Town of West Warwick v. Local 1104, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC, 745 A.2d 786, 788 (R.I. 2000) (quoting State v. Desjarlais, 731 A.2d 716, 717-18 (R.I.1999)). [8] *33 Here, Pereira argues that the Legislature "doubled" the "quantum of punishment" for the offense for which he was convicted and that therefore his prosecution

2009This Court has held that a violation of the ex post facto clause occurs when there is a “retrospective application of law that disadvantages an offender ‘by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.’ ” Town of West Warwick v. Local 1104, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC, 745 A.2d 786, 788 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Desjarlais, 731 A.2d 716, 717-18 (R.I.1999)). 8 Here, Pereira argues that the Legislature “doubled” the “quantum of punishment” for the offense for which he was convicted and that therefore his prosecution under

1986Earlier in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 , 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2298 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344, 356 (1977), the Supreme Court observed that “[e]ven though [a procedural change] may work to the disadvantage of a defendant, [such a change] is not ex post facto.” A procedural change, although retrospective in application, has been held not to be violative of the ex post facto bar if it does “not increase the punishment nor change the ingredients of the offense or the ultimate facts necessary to establish guilt.” Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 , 29 n. 12, 101 S.Ct. 960 , 964 n. 12, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 , 23 n. 1

1986Earlier in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 , 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2298 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344, 356 (1977), the Supreme Court observed that “[e]ven though [a procedural change] may work to the disadvantage of a defendant, [such a change] is not ex post facto.” A procedural change, although retrospective in application, has been held not to be violative of the ex post facto bar if it does “not increase the punishment nor change the ingredients of the offense or the ultimate facts necessary to establish guilt.” Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 , 29 n. 12, 101 S.Ct. 960 , 964 n. 12, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 , 23 n. 1

2018CONST. art. 1, § 12. 16 As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the ex post facto clause "is aimed at laws that 'retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts.' " California Department of Corrections v. Morales , 514 U.S. 499 , 504, 115 S.Ct. 1597 , 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995) (quoting Collins v. Youngblood , 497 U.S. 37 , 43, 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) ).

2018CONST. art. 1, § 12. 16 As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the ex post facto clause "is aimed at laws that 'retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts.' " California Department of Corrections v. Morales , 514 U.S. 499 , 504, 115 S.Ct. 1597 , 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995) (quoting Collins v. Youngblood , 497 U.S. 37 , 43, 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) ).

2018Likewise, we have "held that a violation of the ex post facto clause occurs when there is a 'retrospective application of law that disadvantages an offender by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.' " State v. Pereira , 973 A.2d 19 , 32 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Town of West Warwick v. Local 1104, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC , 745 A.2d 786 , 788 (R.I. 2000) ). 17 "It is black letter law that the ex post facto clause in both our state and federal constitutions only prohibit retroactive penal legislation." State v. Germane

2018Likewise, we have "held that a violation of the ex post facto clause occurs when there is a 'retrospective application of law that disadvantages an offender by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.' " State v. Pereira , 973 A.2d 19 , 32 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Town of West Warwick v. Local 1104, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC , 745 A.2d 786 , 788 (R.I. 2000) ). 17 "It is black letter law that the ex post facto clause in both our state and federal constitutions only prohibit retroactive penal legislation." State v. Germane

2000Id.; (see also Collins v. Youngblood , 497 U.S. 37 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990); State v. Figueroa , 639 A.2d 495 , 499 (R.I. 1994); ("It is black letter law that the ex post facto clause in both our state and federal constitutions only prohibit retroactive penal legislation.")).

2000See Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990); State v. Figueroa, 639 A.2d 495, 499 (R.I.1994).

2005See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 105-06 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 , 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (Holding that there is no violation of the ex post facto clause where the challenged sex offender registration act is determined to be nonpunitive and part of a remedial civil regulatory scheme); see also, e.g., Maureen -S. Hopbell, Comment, Balancing the Protection of Children Against the Protection of Constitutional Rights: The Past, Present and Future of Megan’s Law, 42 Duq.

2005See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 105-06 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 , 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (Holding that there is no violation of the ex post facto clause where the challenged sex offender registration act is determined to be nonpunitive and part of a remedial civil regulatory scheme); see also, e.g., Maureen -S. Hopbell, Comment, Balancing the Protection of Children Against the Protection of Constitutional Rights: The Past, Present and Future of Megan’s Law, 42 Duq.

2018See State v. Pelz , 765 A.2d 824 , 830-31 (R.I. 2001).

2011Lastly, in Barber , we declined to address the applicant’s alleged equal protection claim because we held that the law had “long since been determined contrary to his contention!)]” Barber, 682 A.2d at 910 (citing Mastracchio v. Superior Court, 98 R.I. 111, 112-13 , 200 A.2d 10, 11 (1964)).

2011Lastly, in Barber , we declined to address the applicant’s alleged equal protection claim because we held that the law had “long since been determined contrary to his contention!)]” Barber, 682 A.2d at 910 (citing Mastracchio v. Superior Court, 98 R.I. 111, 112-13 , 200 A.2d 10, 11 (1964)).

2011The Court has further explained the Bouie theory of vagueness by emphasizing that "a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime." Rogers v. Tennessee , 532 U.S. 451 , *Page 18 457 (2001) (emphasis added) (quoting Bouie , 378 U.S. at 350 ); see also Rogers , 532 U.S. at 459-60 (listing the cases interpreting Bouie , all of which are criminal); State v. DeWitt , 557 A.2d 845 , 848 (R.I. 1989) (interpreting Bouie 's "fair warning" requirement as qualifying the application of the ex post facto clause).

2011The Court has further explained the Bouie theory of vagueness by emphasizing that "a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime." Rogers v. Tennessee , 532 U.S. 451 , *Page 18 457 (2001) (emphasis added) (quoting Bouie , 378 U.S. at 350 ); see also Rogers , 532 U.S. at 459-60 (listing the cases interpreting Bouie , all of which are criminal); State v. DeWitt , 557 A.2d 845 , 848 (R.I. 1989) (interpreting Bouie 's "fair warning" requirement as qualifying the application of the ex post facto clause).

2009In his brief, defendant concedes that "it is likewise clear that where a statute of limitations is extended prior to the then-nol-yet-time-barred action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs.” See Fiorenzano, 690 A.2d at 861 ("When, as here, a statute of limitations is extended prior to the barring of an action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs.”); see also Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 616-17, 632-33 , 123 S.Ct. 2446 , 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003) (holding ex post facto clause prohibits legislature from reviving time-barred criminal cases but not disturbing state co

2009In his brief, defendant concedes that "it is likewise clear that where a statute of limitations is extended prior to the then-nol-yet-time-barred action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs.” See Fiorenzano, 690 A.2d at 861 ("When, as here, a statute of limitations is extended prior to the barring of an action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs.”); see also Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 616-17, 632-33 , 123 S.Ct. 2446 , 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003) (holding ex post facto clause prohibits legislature from reviving time-barred criminal cases but not disturbing state co

2009This Court has held that a violation of the ex post facto clause occurs when there is a “retrospective application of law that disadvantages an offender ‘by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.’ ” Town of West Warwick v. Local 1104, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC, 745 A.2d 786, 788 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Desjarlais, 731 A.2d 716, 717-18 (R.I.1999)). 8 Here, Pereira argues that the Legislature “doubled” the “quantum of punishment” for the offense for which he was convicted and that therefore his prosecution under

2009This Court has held that a violation of the ex post facto clause occurs when there is a “retrospective application of law that disadvantages an offender ‘by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.’ ” Town of West Warwick v. Local 1104, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC, 745 A.2d 786, 788 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Desjarlais, 731 A.2d 716, 717-18 (R.I.1999)). 8 Here, Pereira argues that the Legislature “doubled” the “quantum of punishment” for the offense for which he was convicted and that therefore his prosecution under

2009Webb v. Cianci, 591 A.2d 1193, 1214-15 (R.I.1991) (quoting Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352, 1356 (R.I.1983)). [9] In his brief, defendant concedes that "it is likewise clear that where a statute of limitations is extended prior to the then-not-yet-time-barred action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs." See Fiorenzano, 690 A.2d at 861 ("When, as here, a statute of limitations is extended prior to the barring of an action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs."); see also Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 616-17, 632-33 , 123 S.Ct. 2446 , 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003) (holding

2009In his brief, defendant concedes that "it is likewise clear that where a statute of limitations is extended prior to the then-nol-yet-time-barred action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs.” See Fiorenzano, 690 A.2d at 861 ("When, as here, a statute of limitations is extended prior to the barring of an action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs.”); see also Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 616-17, 632-33 , 123 S.Ct. 2446 , 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003) (holding ex post facto clause prohibits legislature from reviving time-barred criminal cases but not disturbing state co

2009Webb v. Cianci, 591 A.2d 1193, 1214-15 (R.I.1991) (quoting Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352, 1356 (R.I.1983)). [9] In his brief, defendant concedes that "it is likewise clear that where a statute of limitations is extended prior to the then-not-yet-time-barred action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs." See Fiorenzano, 690 A.2d at 861 ("When, as here, a statute of limitations is extended prior to the barring of an action, no violation of the ex post facto clause occurs."); see also Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 616-17, 632-33 , 123 S.Ct. 2446 , 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003) (holding

2009See State v. Broadway, 157 N.C. 598 , 72 S.E. 987, 987-88 (1911) (holding amendment to a statute increasing the criminal penalty operated prospectively only, otherwise it would violate the ex post facto clause; therefore, prosecutions under old statute remained viable).

2009See State v. Broadway, 157 N.C. 598 , 72 S.E. 987, 987-88 (1911) (holding amendment to a statute increasing the criminal penalty operated prospectively only, otherwise it would violate the ex post facto clause; therefore, prosecutions under old statute remained viable).