F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 19 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROBERT O. WOODS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-6185
(D.C. No. 98-CV-80)
KEN KLINGER, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , BARRETT , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 1
Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, on his claim alleging that Oklahoma’s Truth in Sentencing Act violated
the Ex Post Facto Clause by eliminating the Electronic Monitoring and
Specialized Supervision Programs, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 510.9 (amended
1997) and § 611 (repealed 1997). 2
See, e.g. , Devine v. New Mexico Dep’t of
Corrections , 866 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir. 1989) (ex post facto clause precludes
retroactive increase in actual time inmate must spend in jail prior to supervised
release).
The Ex Post Facto Clause precludes application of a retrospective act
that inflicts “a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when
committed,” because such application implicates “the central concerns of the
Ex Post Facto Clause: the lack of fair notice and governmental restraint when
1
We grant petitioner’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and
fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. We also grant his motions to file a supplemental
reply brief and to strike the affidavits attached to respondent’s brief, which were
not submitted to the district court in the first instance. See, e.g. , Aero-Medical,
Inc. v. United States , 23 F.3d 328, 329 n. 2 (10th Cir. 1994).
2
This court previously granted petitioner a certificate of appealability as to
this one issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
-2-
the legislature increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime
was consummated.” Lynce v. Mathis , 519 U.S. 433, 441 (1997) (quotations
omitted). “To fall within the ex post facto prohibition, a law must be
retrospective . . . and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it by altering
the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.”
Id. (further quotations omitted).
The Oklahoma legislature, however, enacted the Electronic Monitoring
and Specialized Supervision Programs in 1993, after petitioner had committed,
and been convicted of, the crimes at issue here. The legislature’s subsequent
elimination of these programs, in 1997, did not increase the punishment
prescribed at the time petitioner committed these criminal acts and, therefore,
did not offend the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Weaver v. Graham , 450 U.S. 24,
30-31 (1981); see also Lynce , 519 U.S. at 447-49 (recognizing “force” of
argument that retroactive changes in law enacted after conviction and sentence
would not violate Ex Post Facto Clause).
-3-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma denying habeas relief is, therefore, AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-4-