The opinion
421
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted March 17, affirmed April 19, 2023
ANDREW GUY MORET,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE AND
POST-PRISON SUPERVISION,
Respondent.
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
A176956
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for
petitioner.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
AOYAGI, P. J.
Affirmed.
422 Moret v. Board of Parole
AOYAGI, P. J.
Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board
of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board). In his sole
assignment of error, he argues that the board erred in deny-
ing his request for a murder review hearing. He makes four
arguments to that end. We affirm.
First, petitioner argues that the board failed to
comply with OAR 255-032-0005(1), which provides, in rele-
vant part:
“A person convicted of Murder under ORS 163.115 that was
committed on or after June 30, 1995, and who was sen-
tenced to life with a twenty-five (25) year minimum shall
receive a hearing within one year of sentencing. At the
hearing the Board shall set a review date congruent with
the minimum terms set forth in OAR 255-032-0010 rather
than a parole release date. In lieu of holding a hearing, the
Board may determine the prison term/murder review date
by administrative file pass.”
After petitioner filed his opening brief, the board set peti-
tioner’s murder review date—September 15, 2040—by
administrative file pass. Consequently, no further relief is
available on petitioner’s first argument.
Second, petitioner argues that the board’s order is
not supported by substantial evidence because it contains a
factual error regarding the order in which petitioner’s con-
secutive sentences are to be served and, consequently, mis-
states that petitioner’s murder review date is in 2045 rather
than 2040. That issue has also been resolved since the open-
ing brief was filed, as noted above.
Third, petitioner argues that “given petitioner’s
stated desire for the board’s guidance in his rehabilitation,
the board’s failure to explain why it was rational to deny
him a hearing to receive that guidance means that its order
lacks substantial reason.” It is the board’s choice whether to
set the murder review date at a hearing or by administra-
tive file pass. The board did not abuse its discretion in choos-
ing the latter option. Moreover, petitioner has not explained
why the board would be required to discuss rehabilitation
with him as part of setting the murder review date.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 325 Or App 421 (2023) 423
Finally, petitioner argues in the alternative that the
board should have treated his request for a murder review
hearing as a request for a “personal interview” hearing. The
board did not err by ruling on the request that petitioner
actually made.
Affirmed.