# Hopkins v. Board of Parole

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · August 28, 2024 · 334 Or. App. 652

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10611013

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** August 28, 2024
- **Citations:** 334 Or. App. 652
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Lagesen
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10611013

## Opinion text

652 August 28, 2024 No. 611

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON

DEVYN MICHAEL HOPKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE
AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION,
Respondent.
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
A182899

Submitted July 12, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
petitioner.
Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, waived
appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 334 Or App 652 (2024) 653

LAGESEN, C. J.
Petitioner seeks judicial review from a final order
of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board).
Petitioner’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069
(1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP
5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1
After admitting to violations of the terms of his
post-prison supervision (PPS), the board revoked petition-
er’s PPS for 180 days. The board denied petitioner’s request
for administrative review because petitioner did not advance
any legal arguments or explain why he was requesting
review. Having reviewed the record and the Balfour brief,
we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.
Affirmed.

1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding
matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.
Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10611013. Public record. Not legal advice.