Summary
The Washington Supreme Court dismissed Jonathan Lee Gentry's personal restraint petition challenging his placement in indefinite solitary confinement in the intensive management unit. The majority held that solitary confinement was contemplated by Washington law and regulations when Gentry committed his crime and was sentenced, and that the loss of special housing and related privileges did not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto punishment. Justice Stephens, joined by Justice Sanders, dissented and would have ordered a reference hearing to develop the factual record concerning the changed conditions of confinement.
Holdings
- The conditions of Gentry's confinement in the intensive management unit did not constitute ex post facto punishment because solitary confinement and intensive-management-unit placement were contemplated by Washington law and Department of Corrections regulations when he committed the crime and was sentenced.
- Gentry had no protected liberty interest in continued special housing unit placement, human contact, or the related privileges because the Department of Corrections retained discretion to deny or terminate that placement for disciplinary, protective, security, transportation, staffing, or other administrative reasons.
- Gentry was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he failed to establish unlawful restraint under RAP 16.4.
Questions Presented
- Whether returning Gentry from the special housing unit to the intensive management unit, with more restrictive conditions of confinement, violated the state or federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto punishment.
- Whether Gentry had a protected liberty interest in continued special housing unit placement and its associated privileges based on his prior good behavior and earned good-time credit.
- Whether Gentry was entitled to an evidentiary or reference hearing concerning the historical and present conditions of death-row confinement.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Lord, 123 Wash. 2d 296, 303, 868 P.2d 835 (1994)(followed)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Cook, 114 Wash. 2d 802, 812, 792 P.2d 506 (1990)(followed)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Grantham, 168 Wash. 2d 204, 211, 214, 227 P.3d 285 (2010)(followed)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Isadore, 151 Wash. 2d 294, 299, 88 P.3d 390 (2004)(followed)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Dyer, 143 Wash. 2d 384, 387-397, 20 P.3d 907 (2001)(followed)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 486, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995)(followed)
- In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 164, 167, 171, 10 S. Ct. 384, 33 L. Ed. 835 (1890)(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…