Murphy v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

915 P.2d 489, 140 Or. App. 642, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 622
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided May 1, 1996·No. CA A83273·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that rescinded his parole release date. He contends that the Board violated applicable law by failing to hold a hearing before issuing the order. He asks us to reverse the order and to remand with specific instructions that the Board release petitioner.

We agree with petitioner that the Board violated an applicable rule by failing to hold a hearing prior to issuing its order. We decline, however, to grant petitioner the relief that he seeks. The only relief to which petitioner is entitled is a hearing to determine if he should be released, and the Board held such a hearing after the order on review. Because petitioner has been accorded a full hearing, no further relief remains to be granted. See, e.g., Floyd v. Motor Vehicles Div., 27 Or App 41, 44-45, 554 P2d 1024, rev den 276 Or 873 (1976).

Affirmed.

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

Murphy v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 915 P.2d 489, 140 Or. App. 642, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 622 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

915 P.2d 489 (Murphy v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Porter v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
383 P.3d 427 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2016)
Murphy v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
925 P.2d 98 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1996)