Caton v. State
291 Neb. 939
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Bruce Caton was sentenced to 10–20 years (with 363 days credit) after a 2004 conviction; the 10‑year term was a mandatory minimum under the habitual‑criminal statute.
- The Department of Correctional Services mistakenly discharged Caton after calculating good‑time credit against the 10‑year mandatory minimum; he served ~10 years and was released.
- About 8 months later, the error was discovered; the State secured an arrest warrant, returned Caton to custody, and immediately released him on parole while recalculations continued.
- The Department credited Caton for the 8 months he was mistakenly at liberty when computing his mandatory discharge date.
- Caton filed a habeas corpus petition arguing the Department’s post‑sentence reliance on State v. Castillas (2013) to limit good‑time credit violated the Ex Post Facto Clause / Due Process (because the interpretation was unforeseeable and retroactive).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying the Court’s later statutory interpretation (Castillas) to Caton’s sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause or Due Process fair‑warning rule | Caton: Castillas’ interpretation was unforeseeable and retroactive, so applying it deprived him of fair warning and imposed additional punishment | State: Judicial interpretations are not legislative changes; Castillas’ reading was legally supported and not surprising, so retroactive application did not offend due process or ex post facto principles | Court: Rejects Caton; Castillas’ interpretation was neither unexpected nor indefensible; no Ex Post Facto/Due Process violation |
| Whether a parolee may challenge custody via habeas corpus | Caton invoked habeas | State conceded habeas was proper; parolee is "in custody under sentence" | Court: A parolee may seek relief by habeas corpus; Caton’s habeas claim fails on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Castillas, 285 Neb. 174 (2013) (interpreting Nebraska good‑time statutes to bar applying good time to mandatory minimums)
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) (holding retroactive changes to good‑time calculations can violate Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (parolees are "in custody" for habeas purposes)
- Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) (textual limit of Ex Post Facto Clause to legislatures; retroactive judicial decision‑making analyzed under Due Process)
- Johnson v. Kenney, 265 Neb. 47 (2002) (prior Nebraska discussion that good‑time computations should not produce discharge before parole eligibility)