AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Petitioner, serving two consecutive life sentences for the first-degree murders of his wife and three stepchildren, sought to correct his parole eligibility. He was informed post-sentencing that he would not be eligible for parole until after serving thirty years for each life sentence, contrary to his understanding at the time of his plea that he would be eligible after ten years (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the discrepancy between the advised and actual parole eligibility periods rendered his plea involuntary and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. He sought a writ of habeas corpus to correct his parole eligibility from thirty to ten years (paras 3-6, 8).
• Respondent: Agreed with the Petitioner that the district court erroneously relied on a previous case (Quintana) and requested the Court to grant the petition and any further relief deemed just and proper (para 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in ordering the Petitioner to serve thirty instead of ten years before consideration for parole based on the court's reliance on the Quintana decision (para 1).
• Whether the Petitioner's parole eligibility should be adjusted to reflect eligibility after ten years of imprisonment, in line with the Devine decision (paras 9-16).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of parole eligibility, reversed the district court's summary dismissal on that issue, and remanded with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering that Petitioner's eligibility for a parole hearing accrue upon the completion of ten years of service on his current life sentence (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court, per Justice Charles W. Daniels, with Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justices Richard C. Bosson, Edward L. Chávez, and Barbara J. Vigil concurring, found that the district court erroneously relied on the Quintana decision, which had been effectively overruled by the federal court in Devine. The Devine decision held that increasing parole eligibility from ten to thirty years based on retroactive application of law violated ex post facto principles. Acknowledging the supremacy of federal law and the need to correct the misapplication of Quintana, the Court reversed the district court's decision and ordered the district court to adjust the Petitioner's parole eligibility to ten years, in accordance with the law in effect at the time of his crimes and sentencing (paras 9-19).