The opinion
157
Submitted November 12, affirmed December 23, 2020
LUIS ALEJANDRO LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE
AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION,
Respondent.
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
A167953
478 P3d 609
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Stephanie J. Hortsch, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the opening and reply
briefs for petitioner. Luis Alejandro Lopez filed the supple-
mental brief pro se.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Patricia J. Rincon, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
158 Lopez v. Board of Parole
PER CURIAM
Petitioner has petitioned for review of a final order
of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. In
that order, following a murder-review hearing under ORS
163.105, the board found that petitioner had not sustained
his burden of demonstrating that he was likely to be reha-
bilitated within a reasonable period of time and then, based
on that finding, declined to change the terms of petition-
er’s confinement. On review, in his brief filed through coun-
sel, petitioner assigns error to that determination. In a
pro se supplemental brief, petitioner contends that the board
plainly erred by not enforcing what, in his view, were the
terms of his plea agreement.
We reject petitioner’s pro se assignment of error
without further discussion, seeing no plain error by the
board. As for petitioner’s challenge to the board’s determi-
nation that he had not met his burden of demonstrating his
likelihood of rehabilitation in a reasonable amount of time,
petitioner has filed a “Notice of Probable Mootness,” alert-
ing us that the board has since “issued an order finding
that petitioner has met that burden,” and that, further, the
board granted a parole release date of November 1, 2020.
We are persuaded that the board’s subsequent actions have
rendered moot the assignment of error raised in petitioner’s
brief submitted through counsel. For that reason, we affirm
the order on review without addressing the merits of that
assignment of error.
Affirmed.