concluding that the Board’s iterative rulings may have deprived a petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to challenge those rulings and, therefore, denying an application to withdraw
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the Board’s iterative rulings may have deprived a petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to challenge those rulings and, therefore, denying an application to withdraw
- stating that “a [“]no- merit[”] letter must substantively address each of the petitioner’s arguments, rather than baldly stating that the claims are without merit”
- providing an in depth discussion of the historical developments in this Court’s jurisprudence dealing with withdraw of counsel in probation and parole cases
- providing an in depth discussion of the historical developments in this Court’s jurisprudence dealing with withdraw *44 of counsel in probation and parole cases
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge McGINLEY.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that Counsel failed to provide substantial reasons for concluding that the January 31, 2008, recalculation order was rendered moot by a subsequent order which extended Hughes’s maximum date by three months. Counsel stated in his letter, “Additionally, although the appeal to the recalculated maximum sentence was timely, the subsequent decision mailed April 14, 2008, presented a new calculation. Therefore, his February 28, 2008, administrative appeal was dismissed as moot. Petitioner [Hughes] never appealed the April 14, 2008, recalculation order.” Letter *28 from Kent D. Watkins, October 6, 2008, at 4. Once the new calculation of the maximum date was announced by the Board, this new calculation rendered Hughes’s challenge to the January 31, 2008, recalculation order moot. Counsel was terse in his explanation but he did set forth the reason the request for administrative relief was moot. I would grant the petition to withdraw and affirm on the merits.
President Judge LEADBETTER and Judge LEAVITT join in this dissent.