Filed: Jan. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-24-2006 Johnson v. PA Bd Probation Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2239 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Johnson v. PA Bd Probation" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1727. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1727 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the O
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-24-2006 Johnson v. PA Bd Probation Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2239 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Johnson v. PA Bd Probation" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1727. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1727 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Op..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-24-2006
Johnson v. PA Bd Probation
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2239
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Johnson v. PA Bd Probation" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1727.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1727
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2239
DETROY JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF
PROBATION AND PAROLE;
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA;
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 02-cv-04632)
District Judge: Honorable James K. Gardner
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 9, 2006
Before: BARRY and AMBRO, Circuit Judges,
and DEBEVOISE,* District Judge
(Opinion filed January 24, 2006)
*
Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise, Senior District Court Judge for the District
of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Detroy Johnson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, arguing, inter alia, that the denial by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole (the “Board”) of his application for parole violates the ex post facto clause of our
Constitution. Johnson’s appointed counsel on appeal, John S. Benson, filed an Anders
motion to withdraw as counsel, asserting that all potential grounds for appeal are
frivolous. We consider that motion here and, for the reasons set forth below, grant it and
affirm the District Court’s denial of Johnson’s habeas petition.
I.
Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), if counsel “finds [a] case to be
wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination” of the potential grounds for appeal,
s/he should “advise the court and request permission to withdraw.”
Id. at 744. This
request must be accompanied by “a brief referring to anything in the record that might
arguably support the appeal,” id.,“explain[ing] to the court why the issues are frivolous,”
United States v. Marvin,
211 F.3d 778, 781 (3d Cir. 2000), and demonstrating that s/he
has “thoroughly scoured the record in search of appealable issues,”
id. at 780. A copy of
counsel’s brief must be furnished to the appellant, who must be given time to raise
2
nonfrivolous arguments in a pro se brief. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Third Circuit LAR
109.2(a) (2000).
We “confine our scrutiny to those portions of the record identified by an adequate
Anders brief . . . [and] those issues raised in Appellant’s pro se brief.” United States v.
Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 301 (3d Cir. 2001). We do not “comb the record . . . for possible
non-frivolous issues that both the lawyer and his client may have overlooked,” as “[our]
duty is merely to determine whether counsel is correct in believing those grounds [raised
are] frivolous.” United States v. Wagner,
103 F.3d 551, 552-53 (7th Cir. 1996). We
grant counsel’s Anders motion to withdraw if we believe “that the attorney has provided
the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim,”
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988), and if we conclude
“that the appeal lacks any basis in law or fact,”
id. at 438 n.10.
II.
As we write for the parties, only a brief summary of pertinent facts and procedural
history is necessary. In June 1982, Johnson was convicted in the Philadelphia Common
Pleas Court of two robberies and sentenced to seven years probation. While on parole, he
pled guilty to third degree murder and conspiracy and was sentenced to serve a five to
fifteen year term on the murder conviction and a five to ten year term on the conspiracy
conviction. Because Johnson committed the murder and conspiracy while on probation
for the 1982 robberies, the Common Pleas Court revoked his probation and sentenced him
3
to two to five year terms for each of his robbery convictions to be served concurrently
with each other but consecutive to his murder sentence. Effective December 19, 1987,
his consecutive robbery and murder sentences were aggregated to a seven to twenty year
sentence.
When his minimum sentence expired in December 1994, the Board released
Johnson on parole. However, six months later he was arrested and charged with a
number of new crimes, including criminal trespass. On August 7, 1996, Johnson pled
guilty to criminal trespass and received a sentence of nine to twenty-three months in
county prison. The sentencing court paroled Johnson on that sentence on September 3,
1996.
As a result of his criminal trespass conviction, the Board charged Johnson with a
violation of parole on his robbery and murder sentence. Subsequent to a revocation
hearing, the Board revoked parole and re-committed Johnson effective the date that he
had been paroled from his county sentence. Because Johnson had committed a new crime
while on parole, the Board provided him no credit for time served on parole and
calculated that he had thirteen more years to serve in prison from his effective date of re-
commitment. Consequently, Johnson’s sentence is set to expire on September 3, 2009.
Since Johnson’s re-commitment, the Board has reviewed Johnson for re-parole numerous
times but has denied re-parole after each review. Reasons for those denials have included
assaultive misconduct, supervision failures, need for counseling, refusal to submit a DNA
4
sample, refusal to accept responsibility for his crime and adverse recommendations from
the Department of Corrections.
In July 2002, Johnson filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, raising several
arguments, including his ex post facto claim. Magistrate Judge Sandra Moore Wells
entered a recommendation that Johnson’s petition be denied for failure to demonstrate a
substantial violation of any constitutional right. District Judge James Knoll Gardner
entered an order adopting Judge Wells’ recommendation and denying a certificate of
appealability (“COA”). Johnson appealed and our Court issued a COA on the sole issue
of whether the Board had denied Johnson’s application for parole in violation of the ex
post facto clause.
III.
In his habeas petition, Johnson specifically alleges that, in assessing his eligibility
for parole, the Board, by ignoring the Constitution’s ex post facto clause, applied
retroactively (and thus unconstitutionally) Pennsylvania’s DNA Detection of Sexual and
Violent Offenders Act, 44 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 2301-2336 (“DNA Act”), as well as the
Department of Corrections (the “DOC”) policy enforcing that Act, DOC Policy 11.6.1.
The DNA Act requires that any person convicted of a felony (which includes murder and
robbery) have a DNA sample drawn. 44 Pa. Const. Stat. Ann. §§ 2303, 2316(a). Persons
serving prison sentences for one of these offenses on the effective date of the law – such
5
as Johnson – may not be released from prison until the sample has been drawn. Id. at §
2316(3). The samples are to be used “only for law enforcement identification purposes or
to assist in the recovery or identification of human remains from disasters or for other
humanitarian identification purposes.”
Id. at § 2318(c).
According to Johnson, he had a constitutional expectation that his parole petition
would be evaluated under the laws in effect when he was convicted. Because the DNA
Act was not in effect at the time of his conviction, he argues that his noncompliance with
the Act was not a valid basis on which to deny him re-parole. Our review of the record,
however, confirms that Johnson’s ex post facto argument in this context is frivolous.
Under the ex post facto clause, “the government may not apply a law retroactively
that ‘inflicts a greater punishment . . . than the law annexed to the crime . . . when
committed.’” Artway v. Attorney General of State of N.J., 81 F.3d 1235, 1253 (3d Cir.
1996) (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798)). The threshold question
under the clause, therefore, is whether the DNA Act imposes “punishment.” If it does
not, our inquiry with respect to that Act is at an end. See
id. at 1253. Application of our
rationale in Artway— where we held that sex offender registration does not violate the ex
post facto clause—makes clear that collection of a DNA sample to be used for future
investigation and identification purposes cannot be punishment that implicates the clause.
Id. at 1264-67.
Indeed, Commonwealth courts have held expressly that “the [Pennsylvania DNA]
6
blood testing requirement is not penal and therefore cannot offend the ex post facto
clause.” Dial v. Vaughn, 733 A.2d 1, 4-5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999). In Dial, the Court
observed:
The requirement that [the prisoner] submit to pre-release withdrawal of a
blood sample for DNA testing does not alter his maximum sentence. Nor
does the Act alter [the prisoner’s] parole eligibility date. Once eligibility
has been achieved by incarceration for the prescribed minimum time, actual
release on parole may depend on full compliance with a variety of prison
rules and administrative requirements. The Act defines an administrative
requirement that must be satisfied prior to release. This requirement is
similar to the requirement for acquisition and storage of other convict
identification records in the form of photos, fingerprints and physical
description compiled at the time of arrest.
733 A.2d at 4.
We agree with the Commonwealth and several of our sister circuits that the
collection of blood for identification and establishment of a DNA data bank is, like
fingerprinting and photographing, a non-penal, administrative requirement that does not
run afoul of the ex post facto clause. See, e.g., Gilbert v. Peters, 55 F.3d 237, 239 (7th
Cir. 1995) (stating that “[b]oth federal and state courts have uniformly concluded that
statutes which authorize collection of blood specimens to assist in law enforcement are
not penal in nature”). Nor do we believe that denial of parole for refusal to comply with
the Act’s sample collection requirements is ex post facto. This is because whatever
disadvantage is imposed (denial of parole) from an inmate’s refusal to comply with the
DNA Act results “not by reason of conduct that took place before enactment of the
statute, so as to become retrospective, but from conduct that occurred after enactment in
7
refusing to comply with a reasonable regulation.” Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 309 n.3
(4th Cir. 1992) (holding that retention of inmates who refused to provide blood for a
DNA sample was not an ex post facto law since that retention did not exceed the terms of
the prisoners’ initial sentences) (italics in original).
*****
For the reasons provided above, we affirm the decision of the District Court
denying Johnson’s petition for habeas corpus and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
8
