Peterson v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Peterson v. Johnson

979 P.2d 773, 159 Or. App. 577, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 521

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 14, 1999

Docket97-06-28930M; CA A101477

StatusPublished

This text of 979 P.2d 773 (Peterson v. Johnson) 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

Peterson v. Johnson, 979 P.2d 773, 159 Or. App. 577, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 521 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

LANDAU, P. J.

In this habeas corpus case, the state appeals, seeking reversal of the trial court’s decision that plaintiff was entitled to release from prison on the ground that the Board of Parole had erred in determining that plaintiff suffered from a present severe emotional disturbance that rendered him a danger to the health and safety of the community. Pursuant to the trial court’s order, plaintiff was paroled from prison. The state has filed a motion notifying the court that, since the trial court’s judgment, plaintiff has violated the terms of his parole and that his parole has been revoked. We treat the state’s motion as a motion to determine jurisdiction and conclude that the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

Plaintiffs original habeas corpus petition challenged the deferral of his parole for a two-year period; the state’s appeal of the trial court’s decision pertains solely to the propriety of an order concerning that two-year period. It is beyond dispute that plaintiff is not now, and will never again be, subject to detention under the challenged order. Given the circumstances, the question is whether a decision on the merits of this case could have any practical effect.

The state suggests that it could be argued that, although plaintiff has been reincarcerated, “an appellate court order voiding the circuit court’s release order might eliminate [plaintiffs] ability to challenge the board’s subsequent orders revoking parole and denying rerelease.” We do not believe that that is the type of collateral consequence that can create a justiciable controversy in what otherwise would be a moot case. See Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 405, 848 P2d 1194 (1993); Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383, 977 P2d 431 (1999).

Appeal dismissed.

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

LANDAU, P. J.

In this habeas corpus case, the state appeals, seeking reversal of the trial court’s decision that plaintiff was entitled to release from prison on the ground that the Board of Parole had erred in determining that plaintiff suffered from a present severe emotional disturbance that rendered him a danger to the health and safety of the community. Pursuant to the trial court’s order, plaintiff was paroled from prison. The state has filed a motion notifying the court that, since the trial court’s judgment, plaintiff has violated the terms of his parole and that his parole has been revoked. We treat the state’s motion as a motion to determine jurisdiction and conclude that the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

Plaintiffs original habeas corpus petition challenged the deferral of his parole for a two-year period; the state’s appeal of the trial court’s decision pertains solely to the propriety of an order concerning that two-year period. It is beyond dispute that plaintiff is not now, and will never again be, subject to detention under the challenged order. Given the circumstances, the question is whether a decision on the merits of this case could have any practical effect.

The state suggests that it could be argued that, although plaintiff has been reincarcerated, “an appellate court order voiding the circuit court’s release order might eliminate [plaintiffs] ability to challenge the board’s subsequent orders revoking parole and denying rerelease.” We do not believe that that is the type of collateral consequence that can create a justiciable controversy in what otherwise would be a moot case. See Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 405, 848 P2d 1194 (1993); Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383, 977 P2d 431 (1999).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

979 P.2d 773, 159 Or. App. 577, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-johnson-orctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack