2011 UPDATE:   

In re Russo (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D057405 Fourt Dist.. Div One. April  8, 2011)

In conclusion, the Court held that Marsy's law was just an "admistrative method by which a parole release date is set..." and concluded that no ex post facto violation occurred.

In Re Vicks (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D056998. Fourt Dist.. Div One. May 11, 2011).

In conclusion, the Court conclude the application of the amendments to Penal Code section 3041.5, subdivision (b), to inmates whose commitment offense was committed prior to the effective date of Marsy's Law (November 5,  2008) violates ex post facto principles.

In re Aragon (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D058040 Fourt Dist.. Div One. June 9, 2011).

In conclusion, the Court rejected the In re Vicks panel's conclusion and stated that Marsy's Law does NOT violate the ex post facto principles.

In summary, WE MUST WAIT the finality of these 3 cases to know where Lifers stand as to the state-court Rulings on the question of Marsy's Law being ex post facto as applied to those whose crimes came BEFORE the law!

=========

WHAT IS MARSY'S LAW (aka Prop-9) : On November 4, 2008, California voters were apparently swayed by emotion into passing Proposition 9,  the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act (“Act”). While the proposition’s title is admittedly appealing and evokes understandable sympathy for the silent and defenseless,  the Act’s actual language raises serious constitutional questions. California Penal Code 3041.5 , The Act simplistically treats ALL lifers equally, regardless of  the individual facts or any extenuating circumstances. Additionally, the focus on Life Parole Hearings belies available research and leaves the misimpression as to the proportion and danger of the “Lifers” as parolees. Nevertheless, despite grave concerns, effective November 5, 2008, California Penal Code section 3041.5 is amended, increasing the parole-denial periods to which life prisoners could be subjected.

WHAT PENAL CODE SECTIONS ARE IMPACTED by P9?:  One undisputed consequence of the Act is to substantially extend prison time for  those serving indeterminate sentences. Prior to Prop 9’s enactment, defendants plea bargained accepting certain universally accepted assumptions by all those associated with the conviction process only to discover fifteen years or more on that these “rules” have substantially changed.

Under the former Penal Code section 3041.5 life prisoners who were not convicted of murder could be denied parole for 1 or 2 years, and lifer prisoners who were convicted of murder could be denied parole for 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years. Under amended section 3041.5. ALL life prisoners can be denied parole 15, 10, 7, 5, or 3 years.  Parole Hearing are now by default every 15-year after any  hearing which a parole is denied, unless the BPH can show by “clear and convincing” evidence that the inmate does not require a more lengthy period of incarceration. If that evidence is shown, then the BPH may proceed to set the next denial in the order of 10, 7, 5, and finally 3-years based upon the same criteria.