Ninth Circuit: Statutory Increase in Restitution Payment Rate Does Not Violate Plea Agreement and is Not Ex Post Facto
Ninth Circuit: Statutory Increase in Restitution Payment Rate Does Not Violate Plea Agreement and is Not Ex Post Facto
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a California state prisoner’s challenge to statutory amendments that increased the rate of collections for restitution fines from 20% of prison wages to 50%, upheld the U.S. District Court’s (N.D. Cal.) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim.
As part of a 1989 plea agreement, Alvin Quarles agreed to pay a restitution fine of $10,000, to be collected pursuant to California Penal Code § 2085.5. At that time, § 2085.5 included a 20% cap for deductions from prisoners’ wages. In 1992, § 2085.5 was amended to increase the cap to 50%. Quarles objected when he was subsequently dunned 33% for restitution payments; he filed suit, which was dismissed by the district court.
The Ninth Circuit denied Quarles’ ex post facto claim because the amended statute “did not impose additional punishment.” His punishment was the amount of the fine, not its rate of collection. Similarly, the Court rejected Quarles’ claim that his plea agreement, which was based upon § 2085.5, had been violated by the amendment. The appellate court noted that Quarles did not claim that his plea agreement specified an exact wage deduction percentage. Rather, he only agreed to have payments deducted per the statute. In so agreeing, “he assumed the risk that the statute might be amended.” See: Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login