• Powell v. State (1988) - Established the "some evidence" standard for judicial review of parole decisions.
• COLLINS v. YOUNGBLOOD (1990) - Clarified the scope of the ex post facto clause, limiting it to changes that alter criminal definitions or increase punishment.
• MALLETT v. NORTH CAROLINA (1901) - Rejected ex post facto claims for procedural changes, emphasizing non-substantive adjustments.
• DOBBERT v. FLORIDA (1977) - Held that substituting judicial review for jury sentencing does not violate ex post facto clauses.
• GARNER v. JONES (2000) - Provided a test for determining if procedural changes in parole law violate ex post facto constraints by creating a significant risk of prolonging incarceration.
• IN RE ARAFILES (1992) - Ruled that procedural changes in parole review do not constitute ex post facto violations.
• JOHNSON v. GOMEZ (9th Cir. 1996) - Affirmed that procedural changes in parole review do not violate ex post facto clauses.
• GLUCKSTERN v. SUTTON (1990) - A Maryland case holding that procedural changes in parole review violate ex post facto clauses, relying on a broad interpretation later overruled by Collins.

The Court meticulously examined whether the Governor’s authority to review parole decisions under Article V, Section 8(b) of the California Constitution subjected the denial of parole to ex post facto violations. The key points in the Court’s reasoning include:

• Ex Post Facto Considerations: The Court determined that legislative changes that merely introduce new procedural layers without altering substantive punitive measures do not violate ex post facto clauses. Since Article V, Section 8(b) does not change the punishment but only adds a gubernatorial review layer, it does not constitute an increase in punishment.
• Standard of Review: Both parole decisions by the Board and the Governor’s decisions to affirm or reverse these are subject to the "some evidence" standard. This standard ensures that decisions are not arbitrary, as they must be supported by at least some relevant evidence.
• Law of the Case Doctrine: The Court rejected the Court of Appeal's application of this doctrine, clarifying that since the Governor's decision involves different parties and separate proceedings, prior findings do not bind his decision.
• Separation of Powers: The Court recognized that judicial review of executive parole decisions does not infringe upon the separation of powers, as the review is limited to ensuring decisions are evidence-based and not arbitrary.
• Practical Implementation: Review of the Governor’s decisions focused on whether his determinations were supported by evidence relating to the same factors the Board considered, rather than the Governor conducting an independent assessment of merits.

This judgment establishes a clear precedent that executive review of parole decisions, when confined to the same evaluative factors as administrative boards, remains constitutionally permissible and subject to judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary decision-making. Key implications include:

• Executive Accountability: Governors must base parole decisions on established factors, ensuring that executive discretion does not override procedural safeguards.
• Judicial Oversight: Courts retain the authority to intervene if gubernatorial parole decisions lack evidentiary support, maintaining checks and balances within the state’s governance.
• Precedential Clarity: The decision clarifies the application of the ex post facto clause in the context of procedural changes in parole review, aligning state constitutional interpretation with federal standards post-Collins.
• Policy Formulation: Parole boards and gubernatorial offices must ensure that their procedural frameworks and decision-making processes are transparent and evidence-based to withstand judicial scrutiny.