Legal Opinion
Davis v. Henderson
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided January 12, 1995No. 93-SP-954PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KING, Associate Judge:
James Davis appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the District of Columbia Parole Board (“Board”) violated the ex post facto clause of the Constitution by applying a numerical scoring system (“salient factor score”), adopted after he was sentenced, to determine his parole eligibility. Because salient factor scores merely formalize the method by which the Board can exercise its discretion to grant parole, the guidelines do not offend the ex post facto clause. Therefore, we affirm. 1
Davis has been serving an…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States Parole Commission v. GeraghtySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Dobbert v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Miller v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Lindsey v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Blair-Bey v. QuickCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
- Michael Ellis, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. District of Columbia, Appellants/cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- Sellmon v. ReillyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Wilson v. FullwoodDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- McRae v. HymanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.