The opinion
600 September 24, 2025 No. 836
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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
ANDREW GUY MORET,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON
SUPERVISION,
Respondent.
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
A180434
Submitted August 22, 2025.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the opening and
reply brief for appellant. Andrew Guy Moret filed the sup-
plemental brief pro se.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
TOOKEY, P. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 600 (2025) 601
TOOKEY, P. J.
Petitioner, who was convicted of murder with a fire-
arm and unlawful use of a weapon, seeks judicial review of
an order to the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
(board). Petitioner asserts in his first counseled assignment
that the board erred in setting a murder review eligibil-
ity date of September 15, 2045. He asserts in his second
counseled assignment and in a pro se assignment that the
board erred in declining to grant him a personal interview.
Reviewing the board’s order under ORS 183.482(8)(b) for
substantial evidence and errors of law, we affirm.
Petitioner concedes that he did not raise before
the board the precise issue now raised in his counseled
first assignment, and we conclude for that reason that he
did not exhaust his administrative remedies or preserve
his argument for judicial review. See Tuckenberry v. Board
of Parole, 365 Or 640, 650, 451 P3d 227 (2019) (describing
“issue exhaustion,” as required by board administrative
rules requiring an offender who is challenging a board order
to specifically identify “how the challenged Board action is
alleged to be in violation of statutes or Board rules”); ORS
144.335(1)(b) (precluding judicial review of a board order
unless the person appealing “has exhausted administra-
tive review as provided by board rule”). This case does not
present a circumstance in which, as a prudential matter,
we would exercise our discretion to set aside or relax the
requirements for issue-exhaustion of administrative reme-
dies, see Tuckenberry, 365 Or at 654-55 (concluding that the
issue-exhaustion requirement should be waived, because
the petitioner had (1) set out a “general description” of the
issue; (2) the issue was one of “important * * * public interest
concerning the board’s statutory authority,” and (3) it would
likely have been “futile” for the inmate to raise the issue
before the board); see also Jacobs v. Board of Parole, 342 Or
App 41, ___ P3d ___ (2025) (setting aside issue-exhaustion
requirement based on “equities and as a prudential mat-
ter”), and we therefore decline to address petitioner’s first
assignment.
In his second counseled and pro se assignments,
petitioner asserts that the board erred in failing to accord
602 Moret v. Board of Parole
him a “personal interview.” We assume, for the limited pur-
pose of our discussion of those assignments, that the board’s
decision not to accord petitioner a personal interview caused
petitioner to be “adversely affected or aggrieved,” so as to
be entitled to judicial review. See ORS 144.335(1) (permit-
ting a “person over whom the State Board of Parole and
Post-Prison Supervision exercises its jurisdiction” to “seek
judicial review of a final order of the board” only if the per-
son “is adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order of
the board”). But we reject petitioner’s assignments on their
merits, because, as acknowledged by petitioner, the board’s
decision to accord a personal interview is within the board’s
discretion, see OAR 255-032-0005(1) (providing that, in lieu
of holding a hearing, the board “may determine the prison
term/murder review date by administrative file pass”), and
we conclude that there is no indication on this record that
the board abused its discretion in rejecting petitioner’s
request for a personal interview.
Affirmed.