Durham v. Palmateer

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Durham v. Palmateer

91 P.3d 834, 193 Or. App. 763, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 674

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 9, 2004

Docket00C18480; A113423

StatusPublished

This text of 91 P.3d 834 (Durham v. Palmateer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Durham v. Palmateer, 91 P.3d 834, 193 Or. App. 763, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

*764 PER CURIAM

In 1984, plaintiff was convicted of, and sentenced for, murder, felon in possession of a weapon, and burglary in the first degree. In 1992, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board) issued an order establishing plaintiffs projected parole release date according to the procedures and standards set out in ORS 144.079, which was enacted after plaintiff committed his crimes. On judicial review, this court affirmed without opinion, Durham v. Board of Parole, 126 Or App 175, 868 P2d 1372 (1994), and the Supreme Court denied review, Durham v. Board of Parole, 319 Or 149, 877 P2d 86 (1994).

Plaintiff then sought a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that, under Nulph v. Faatz, 27 F3d 451 (9th Cir 1994)— decided after the board issued its 1992 order — he is entitled to a determination of his parole release date under the law as it existed at the time he committed his crimes. The trial court dismissed the writ.

Plaintiff appeals, again contending that the board erred by determining his parole release date under ORS 144.079. Pursuant to ORAP 8.45, the state has notified the court that the board has now recalculated plaintiffs parole release date pursuant to the law in effect at the time he committed his crimes. Because recalculation of his parole release date in that manner was the only relief that plaintiff sought, we conclude that the case is moot.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*764 PER CURIAM

In 1984, plaintiff was convicted of, and sentenced for, murder, felon in possession of a weapon, and burglary in the first degree. In 1992, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board) issued an order establishing plaintiffs projected parole release date according to the procedures and standards set out in ORS 144.079, which was enacted after plaintiff committed his crimes. On judicial review, this court affirmed without opinion, Durham v. Board of Parole, 126 Or App 175, 868 P2d 1372 (1994), and the Supreme Court denied review, Durham v. Board of Parole, 319 Or 149, 877 P2d 86 (1994).

Plaintiff then sought a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that, under Nulph v. Faatz, 27 F3d 451 (9th Cir 1994)— decided after the board issued its 1992 order — he is entitled to a determination of his parole release date under the law as it existed at the time he committed his crimes. The trial court dismissed the writ.

Plaintiff appeals, again contending that the board erred by determining his parole release date under ORS 144.079. Pursuant to ORAP 8.45, the state has notified the court that the board has now recalculated plaintiffs parole release date pursuant to the law in effect at the time he committed his crimes. Because recalculation of his parole release date in that manner was the only relief that plaintiff sought, we conclude that the case is moot.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 P.3d 834, 193 Or. App. 763, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-v-palmateer-orctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack