bar enactments which, by retroactive operation, increase the punishment for a crime after its commission). Two critical elements must be present for a criminal or penal law to be violative of the ex post facto clause: “It must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.” Weaver, 450 U.S. at 29, 101 S.Ct. 960. It is the effect, not the form of the law, that determines whether it is ex post facto. Weaver, 450 U.S. at 31, 101 S.Ct. 960. Furthermore, “[retroactive changes in laws governing parole of prisoners, in some instances, may be violative of this precept.” Garner, 529 U.S. at 250, 120 S.Ct. 1362; California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The ex post facto clause, however, should not
holding that californias amended paroleprocedures allowing the board of prison terms to decrease the frequency of parole suitability hearings under certain circumstances did not violate the ex post facto clause holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause holding change in ultimate parole decisionmaker from board to governor does not violate ex post facto clause holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause