In re Sampson
197 Cal. App. 4th 1234
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Inmate Tcinque Sampson, validated gang member in SHU, faced January 25, 2010 amendment to Penal Code 2933.6(a) denying conduct credits while in SHU.
- Amendment applies to inmates in SHU who remain active gang members after effective date.
- Sampson challenged the amendment as violating ex post facto clauses and due process/equal protection.
- Trial court granted partial habeas relief, restoring nine months of credits; Warden/California CDCR appealed.
- California Court of Appeal reversed, holding the statute applies prospectively and does not ex post facto punish Sampson’s pre‑amendment conduct; debriefing status and ongoing gang affiliation drive the outcome.
- Key statutory framework: 2933.6(a) denies credits while SHU placement for gang validation; 2933.6(c) preserves credits if misconduct finding overturned or acquittal occurs; debriefing and inactive status provisions govern potential restoration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 2933.6(a) violate ex post facto prohibitions as applied to Sampson? | Sampson—pre‑amendment validation punished retroactively. | Statute prospective; punishes post‑amendment conduct, not pre‑amendment acts. | No ex post facto violation; statute applies prospectively to post‑amendment conduct. |
| If prospective, does debriefing status affect credits and potential restoration? | Debriefing could restore credits if inactive status proven; trial court relied on debriefing delay. | Debriefing status not completed; continuing gang affiliation sustains SHU placement and credit denial. | Debriefing status alone does not compel retroactive credit restoration; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997) (retroactive credit forfeiture analyzed under ex post facto)
- Morales v. Department of Corrections, 514 U.S. 499 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995) (ex post facto focus on punishment definition and timing)
- In re E.J., 47 Cal.4th 1258 (Cal. Supreme Court, 2010) (notion of prospective application of successor restrictions; last act/event rule for retroactivity)
- People v. Cromer, 24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. Supreme Court, 2001) (review standard for ex post facto in California)
- Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1990) (ex post facto test: cannot punish acts committed before law)
- California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995) (ex post facto inquiry for punishment/retroactivity)