## Facts

- James Ernest Miller was convicted in Florida of sexual battery and related offenses.
- At the time Miller committed the crimes, Florida’s sentencing guidelines produced a presumptive range of 3.5 to 4.5 years’ imprisonment.
- Before sentencing, Florida revised its guidelines to increase points for sexual offenses, producing a higher presumptive range of 5.5 to 7 years for the same conduct.
- The trial court applied the revised guidelines over Miller’s Ex Post Facto objection and imposed a 7-year sentence (within the new presumptive range).
- The Florida District Court of Appeal vacated the sentence, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the 7-year sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the retroactive application of the revised guidelines was constitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether applying revised sentencing guidelines to crimes committed before the revisions’ effective date is retrospective for Ex Post Facto purposes.
2. Whether the revised guidelines disadvantaged Miller by increasing the effective punishment, including by raising the presumptive range and altering the availability of appellate review.
3. Whether changes to sentencing guidelines that increase punishment can be treated as merely procedural and thus outside the Ex Post Facto Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Court held that applying the revised sentencing guidelines to Miller violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The revised guidelines were retrospective because they changed the legal consequences of acts committed before their effective date.
- The revised guidelines were more onerous because they substantially disadvantaged Miller and similarly situated offenders by increasing the presumptive range and lacking ameliorative features.
- The Court rejected Florida’s argument that periodic guideline revision provided sufficient “fair warning,” and rejected the claim that the change was merely procedural.

## Legal Principles

- A law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if it is (1) retrospective and (2) disadvantages the offender by increasing punishment.
- Sentencing guidelines can qualify as “law” for ex post facto analysis when they effectively raise the expected punishment for past conduct.
- Increasing the presumptive sentencing range can constitute an ex post facto disadvantage even if a judge could have imposed the same sentence under prior law, where the revision makes that sentence presumptive and reduces or eliminates meaningful appellate constraints associated with departures.
- A change is not merely procedural for Ex Post Facto purposes when it increases the quantum of punishment for a class of offenses.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Florida could not apply revised, harsher sentencing guidelines to conduct completed before the revisions took effect because the changes were retrospective and increased the practical punishment exposure, violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.


Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (1987)