Lynce v. Mathis

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Joel T. Remland (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Parker D. Thomson (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
95-7452
Petitioner: 
Lynce
Respondent: 
Mathis
Opinion: 
519 U.S. 433 (1997)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Lynce v. Mathis , 519 U.S. 433 (1997)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_7452)
Facts of the Case: 

Beginning in 1983, the Florida Legislature enacted a series of statutes authorizing the award of early release credits to prison inmates when the state prison population exceeded predetermined levels. In 1986, Kenneth Lynce received a 22-year prison sentence on a charge of attempted murder. In 1992, he was released based on the determination that he had accumulated five different types of early release credits totaling 5,668 days, including 1,860 days of "provisional credits" awarded as a result of prison overcrowding. Lynce was re-arrested and returned to custody shortly thereafter when the attorney general issued an opinion interpreting a 1992 statute as having retroactively canceled all provisional credits awarded to inmates convicted of murder and attempted murder. Lynce filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that the retroactive cancellation of provisional credits violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution. The District Court rejected Lynce's argument dismissing the petition on the ground that the sole purpose of these credits was to alleviate prison overcrowding. The Court of Appeals denied a certificate of probable cause.

Question: 

Does Florida's 1992 statute canceling early release credits to prison inmates after they have been awarded violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In an opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that the 1992 statute canceling provisional release credits violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Lynce, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10: Ex Post Facto

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority, joined Thomas' concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a regular concurrence
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens