Martin v. Kansas Parole Board
255 P.3d 9
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Martin released on postrelease supervision on Feb 13, 2008 with a June 26, 2009 expiration; the 1991 combined indeterminate sentence left him on parole until discharge; a 1998 Reno County sentence added 32 months with 24 months postrelease supervision; the 2008 HB 2707 amended K.S.A. 21-4608(e)(2) to base post-release supervision on the new sentence and retroactively apply it; the Parole Board extended his discharge date to Apr 13, 2020 under the 2008 amendment; Martin filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the amendment as ex post facto; district court denied the petition and held the amendment constitutional; Martin appeals the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 2008 amendment to K.S.A. 21-4608(e)(2) an impermissible ex post facto law as applied to Martin? | Martín argues the retroactive extension violates ex post facto. | Parole Board argues amendment retroactively applies and is valid. | Yes; amendment is impermissible ex post facto as applied to Martín. |
| Does the 1993 version of K.S.A. 21-4608(e)(2) govern the calculation of postrelease supervision for Martín? | Martín contends the 1993 version controls the calculation. | Board argues the 1993 version applied under pre-amendment rules. | Court interprets the 1993 version as providing the historical framework but finds retroactive 2008 amendment problematic. |
| Does retroactive application of the 2008 amendment violate ex post facto protections by increasing the term of postrelease supervision? | Increase in postrelease supervision term violates punishment increase principle. | Amendment applies retroactively and does not increase punishment under its text. | Yes; retroactive increase in postrelease supervision is an ex post facto violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beard, 274 Kan. 181 (2002) (ex post facto standard review; retroactivity context)
- Stansbury v. Hannigan, 265 Kan. 404 (1998) (ex post facto elements; retroactivity and punishment)
- State v. Preston, 287 Kan. 181 (2008) (presumption of changed law when legislature revises existing law)
- United States v. Paskow, 11 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1993) (parole/post-release changes potentially violate ex post facto)