Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Within the Scope

Administrative Law

: Within the Scope

Letters of Recommendation are One Thing; Commutations Another

By E.L. Lipman

In an interesting opinion handed down yesterday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit turned away the challenge of an Iowa prisoner to a statute that regulates the activities of the Iowa Board of Parole. The statute reduced the frequency with which the Board undertakes the review of sentences of convicted murderers. The Board reviews the files of offenders for possible later recommendation that the Governor of Iowa communte a particular sentence.

Sheryl Ann Snodgress was sentenced to life in prison following the 1981 slaying of her husband. At the time that Snodgrass was convicted, Iowa law provided that the sentence for such an offender would be reviewed by the Iowa Board of Parole within five years of the arrival of the offender at state prison ?and regularly thereafter.? Later, in 1995, the Iowa Legislature further defined the intervals for the Board?s subsequent review to ?no more frequently than every ten years.? Snodgrass challenged the 1995 amendment declaring that, as to her, the change was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

Disagreeing, the appellate panel held that Snodgrass did not have an entitlement to relief. As the panel reasoned, because the Iowa Constitution vests plenary authority in the Governor to commute sentences at any time ? with or without a recommendation from the Board ? the 1995 law did not deprive Snodgrass of any rights that were protected by the Due Process Clause.

The panel?s complete analysis is accessible here.

Full post as published by Within the Scope on January 12, 2008 (boomark / email).