Does California's Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 ("the Reform Act"), as interpreted by California's Supreme Court, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause (U.S. Const., Art. 1, § 10) and/or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, altering the penal consequences of Mr. Harris's convictions for witness dissuasion (Cal. Pen. Code § 136.1) by excluding from the substantial resentencing benefits of the Reform Act any person whose "current offense" conviction is for a crime defined as a "serious felony" under California law as of the operative date of the Reform Act, where said current offense crime was not a serious felony at the time of its commission?

Does California's Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 violate the Ex Post Facto Clause and/or the Due Process Clause?